Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Will Not Be Divided

notdivided.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 912 posts

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#211

Post by abhijitr »

The book "On Tyranny: 20 lessons from the 20th century" by the historian Timothy Snyder is an excellent read for these times. The very first lesson is "Do not obey in advance". It's about how authoritarian power often doesn't need to force compliance, people simply bend the knee in anticipation of being forced. This simply emboldens the authoritarians to go further.

I've been disappointed to see many businesses and institutions obeying in advance recently. I hope this moment wakes up the tech community and beyond.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#213

Post by jwpapi »

timr wrote: post #165
thimabi wrote: post #68

The problem with forcing public policy on companies is that companies are ultimately made from individuals, and surely you can’t force public policy down people’s throats. I’m sure nothing good can come out of strong-arming some of the brightest scientists and engineers the U.S. has. Such a waste of talent trying to make them bend over to the government’s wishes… instead of actually fostering innovation in the very c…

I don't see how public policy is being "forced" on anyone here? It seems like the system is working as intended: government wants to do X; company A says "I won't allow my product to be used for X"; government refuses to do business with company A. One side thinks the government should be allowed to dictate terms to a private supplier, the other side thinks the private supplier should be allowed to dictate terms to t…

I mean Secretary of War can not act any other way to be honest. It’s just a fucked up situation.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#214

Post by jph00 »

dcre wrote: post #173
oceanplexian wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m tired of these bizarre hypothetical gotcha arguments. If AI can create bioweapons, it can equally create vaccines and antidotes to them. We live in a free society. AI should be democratized like any other technology.

This is just not thinking clearly. There are bad things that are asymmetric in character, dramatically easier to do than to mitigate. There’s no antidote or vaccine to nuclear weapons.

This is exactly the thinking that has characterized responses to new sources of power through history, and has been consistently used to excuse hoarding of that power. In the end, enlightenment thinking has largely won out in the western world, and society has prospered as a result.

Centralizing power is dangerous and leads to power struggles and instability.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#217

Post by BitsAndObjects »

dmix wrote: post #192
reaperducer wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU and UK is a long way from attracting top AI talent purely from opportunity and monetary terms. Which is why people are talking about this -- it's about ideology now. You may personally be motivated solely by money. Not everybody is you.

I’m not an AI engineer but it’s not hard to imagine why some bright talent would want to work at the most exciting AI companies in the US while also making 3-10x what they’d make in Europe. Ideology is easy to throw around for internet comments but working on the cutting edge stuff next to the brightest minds in the space will always be a major personal draw. Just look at the Manhattan project, I doubt the primary dr…

See my other comments around here. This idea that salaries in the US are so much higher than Europe for all these top AI roles just isn’t true. Even the big American companies have been opening offices in places like London to hire the top talent at high salaries.

This also isn’t hypothetical. I know top-talent engineers and researchers that have moved out of the USA in the last 12 months due to the political climate (which goes beyond just the AI topics).

And you might want to read a few books on the Manhattan project and the people involved before you use that analogy. I don’t think it’s particularly strong.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#218

Post by layer8 »

dataflow wrote: post #196
layer8 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that it’s about the contract allowing Anthropic to refuse service when they deem a red line has been crossed. Hegseth and friends probably don’t want any discussions to even start, about whether a red line may be in the process of being crossed, and having to answer to that. They don’t want the legality or ethicality of any operation to be under Anthropic’s purview at all.

> My understanding is that it’s about What is "it" in your comment? The refusal to sign a contract with Anthropic, or their designation as a supply chain risk?

I was answering “What, then, is this really about?” By “this”, presumably they meant “the dispute”.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#219

Post by c1c3r0 »

dakolli wrote: post #145
gslepak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares whether the "company" survives? I've seen this movie. A few of them in fact. We're on the chopping block here, lol.

Yeah, I find it funny how we're now defending these AI companies, when they're clearly still an enemy of the working class. They've made it incredibly clear their plans are to disenfranchise labor, and welcome in a world of God knows what with their technologies. Like they're making a stand on mass surveillance, this seems a bit like a red herring, cool they stop using their tools for war fighting, but continue to at…

I look at specific actions in context. What Anthropic did today was amazing in my eyes for reasons that are widely held and stated clearly by Anthropic.

At the same time, I might gesture at other actions they’ve done that fall short. This is not inconsistent; this is simply acknowledging miltidimensionality.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#220

Post by inkysigma »

timr wrote: post #199
inkysigma wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the bigger insanity here is the labeling of a supply chain risk. It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. It's another when it actively attempts to isolate Anthropic for political reasons.

> It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. This is literally the mechanism by which the DoD does what you're suggesting. Generally speaking, the DoD has to do procurement via competitive bidding. They can't just arbitrarily exclude vendors from a bid, and playing a game of "mother may I use Anthropic?" for every potential govern…

I'm not completely familiar with bidding procedures but don't bidding procedures usually have requirements? Why not just list a requirement of unrestricted usage? Or state, we require models to be available for AI murder drones or whatever. Anthropic then can't bid and there's no need to designate them a supply chain risk.
Post reply on HN