201–210 of 873 posts
Imposing a licensing system on models for limiting domestic use should require an act of congress but I mean obviously we're well past that red line.
Overturning the Chevron doctrine is good because it stops lawful people from doing things we don't like. We aren't bound by laws, so we can do whatever we want. -- GOP probably
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The right is fractured is several ways but there is one unifying value: unquestioning support for Trump
I can't tell if you're disingenuous or just ignorant. The Trump admin has been completely coopted by the pro-Israel lobby and Big Tech. He betrayed his entire base. He's ruling by executive fiat (EOs). Anyone that speaks out publicly for the original platform gets a primary challenger funded by Miriam Adelson or threats. See Thomas Massie, MTG, Lauren Boebert, etc. Are you paying attention at all? The Boomers watchin…
Yes that was shortsighted but it’s worked out well for trump. He can basically just… do whatever. Nobody needs to legislate, he’s essentially congress at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Math please? Specifically citing the research that the FDA cited from the NEJoM. Please include the published injury rate, and the published efficacy. If you can't make a point with the math, then don't bother replying. My invitation is to discuss with scientists, to be clear. CNN is not qualified as a scientific body, despite claiming to be. I'm aware that most of the US believes that CNN is the arbiter of science.…
But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single number. So please, if you want math actually make your point without bullshit about me consuming media etc.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
Love to hear your input here. Check the math carefully.
> "Covid vaccines are very safe and saved lots of lives."
I'm convinced you didn't get this idea from honestly reading research.
Next time someone tells you this is the party of free market and small government, I guess you just laugh now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
We all need a healthy dose of reality. Yes the vaccine rollout was not perfect. But 1 million Americans died from Covid. And that’s that, if we can’t even agree on reality then there’s no point in arguing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having an a collective economy governed by the “free market” is like having a pile of stones governed by gravity. There exists a primary directive force, but if you want to construct a cathedral or a bomb shelter, you need to impose some constraints, lest you revert to the angle of repose.
This is a very bad analogy. Markets behave like an imperfect optimisation algorithm, and you can prove that, under some conditions which are most often met, they give people what they want. In fact, you can almost always expect governments to be less effective and less rational than markets in allocating resources to satisfy the desires of people, even when democratic. You can prove it either by using the same logic…
This is why arguments about this go in circles. You either argue from a pure theoretic POV back and forth, or you go off data - at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market"
Even the theoreticians on the free-market side are far less solid than.. all the other sides (behavioural economics, information asymmetry.. even Marx) but I regard it as deeply unpragmatic when there's so much data out there indicating what actually happens in the real world when you go one way or the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's always been a relative, rather than absolute statement. Genuine question: if Democrats take power, do you expect them to be more interventionist or less interventionist with respect to AI? Bernie's jockeying leads me to suspect "more", but I could very well be wrong. (FWIW I personally think modern AI falls in the small realm of potentially dangerous technologies that merit careful, ideally bipartisan, governm…
I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way. The current admin flies by the seat of their pants and at least creates the perception of political decision making.
That was the last major thing the Democrats did, and healthcare has gotten substantially worse...but at least it's well regulated now.
Next time someone tells you this is the party of free market and small government, I guess you just laugh now?
The authority under which this was done has been operative and actively used for several decades. It isn't a partisan issue, it is a policy of American governance. Anyone that has worked on frontier "dual use" technologies will be familiar with the legal regime. The only thing that changed is people are writing articles about it in the news media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
If things are bad are we just supposed to… pretend… they’re not? And that… would help things? Like how? What’s even the mechanism for that?