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

The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

understandingai.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#231

Post by Drupon »

walletdrainer wrote: post #182
Drupon wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fairly easy to abuse a state of exception to cancel elections. Ukraine has done it, and it's been, along with banning opposition parties and attempting to imprison critics (Arestovych, etc.), a critical step in their government consolidating power.

It’s absurd to claim that Ukraine (I’ll assume you actually mean “Ukrainian leadership”) is somehow “abusing” a constitutionally mandated state of emergency.

>I’ll assume you actually mean “Ukrainian leadership”

What else could I possibly have meant, genius?

But yes of course they've taken advantage of it. Russia yeeting them out of its own territories and then invading The Ukraine is the best thing Zelensky could have asked for.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#232

Post by bdangubic »

wat10000 wrote: post #176
Drupon wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fairly easy to abuse a state of exception to cancel elections. Ukraine has done it, and it's been, along with banning opposition parties and attempting to imprison critics (Arestovych, etc.), a critical step in their government consolidating power.

Ukraine's constitution doesn't allow elections when martial law is in effect. The US constitution has no such clause, nor anything else that would allow for delaying or canceling elections. That's not to say it can't be done, but there's a huge difference in difficulty between doing what the country's constitution says, and doing the opposite. Especially in a country where elections are run by sovereign governments n…

And how/who/where do we certify the election results “run by sovereign governments not under the control of the central government”?

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#233

Post by b112 »

mindslight wrote: post #229
b112 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much ensnarled in US mind-think here, it's difficult to respond cogently. Every fiber of your response is keyed to knock down "the other guy". Let's start with this. Framing the argument here as "both sides" team sport is not appropriate. Did these "state actor controlled bots" also create the term DOW? No, the needlessly-divisive propaganda is now coming directly from the White House itself. You are lite…

I'm not the one writing ever-longer screeds. Perhaps you need to reflect on your own anger here? Factually, you have written a lot of things I do agree with. I'm not new to this rodeo. I've been around the left-right gamut. Reading Moldbug is actually what started the end of my rightist-fundamentalist phase. I've never been friendly to this entrenched corporate power structure that backs both major parties as if they…

Your first sentence is bizarre, considering this post is longer than you last. And really, more engagement is a bad thing? Come now.

I feel you're still not getting it though. Because it's not about which side is worse, or who started it, or who's right about something, or who voted for who. It's about how this is discussed, how this is handled.

That's the biggest problem there is.

And yes, I said "barely", and it's quite true. A Democrat could easily be elected just as unhinged. An independent. Yet this sort of highlights my point.

If you stand Trump up against any other US president, just as with an ape or a human, he's literally identical on 98% of things. And really, it's more like 99.9% from an external viewpoint. Yet just as with an ape, that small amount can result in startling differences.

But your parties? The differences are barely noticeable.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#234

Post by LogicFailsMe »

dathinab wrote: post #179
LogicFailsMe wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given there are only ~1135 billionaires in the USA right now, I'd say it's pretty much non-viable to go from sub/barely millionaire to billionaire period. But Taylor Swift doesn't seem to have murdered any kittens to get where she is nor did Rihanna so it can happen without totally selling out.

yesn't my argument was more about becoming a billionaire by creating bringing a company to a level of success where they dominate their area of business. I.e. not getting there by "fame" or "pure luck" (lets say you got 1/42th of early bitcoin from a "fun" project in the very early bitcoin days or similar). Let's also for simplicity ignore that getting there by "fame" often involve tight cooperation with companies/pe…

In the short term I agree with you. But at some point, there's going to be a huge bar tab to clean up the mess. I'm a bit surprised none of them seem to be angling how to profit from that day when it comes.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#235

Post by rootusrootus »

pavlov wrote: post #228
nomel wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen more enthusiasm about US politics than from Europeans (like pavlov there in Finland) and Australians. It makes meaningful discussion very difficult, online.

I lived in the US for years (including Jan 6 2021) and I’ve seen how this playbook was executed in Russia. From my POV, Americans are hopelessly naive about their institutions holding up when it’s been demonstrated so many times that the guardrails are gone. It’s one of the reasons I left the country - I feel safer living next to Russia than in America.

I think that is a valid point, though I would like to see some meat in these proclamations of doom.

There are more guns than people in the US, and in nobody's wildest dreams does ICE (or the entire federal government, for that matter, including the military) have enough personnel to subdue even 10% of the population rising up. And while I think it is somewhat valid to assume the military leans a bit conservative, in my experience it is more of a true conservatism and not MAGA. I was in the military, and the vast majority of soldiers would 100% refuse to suppress US citizens.

Everyone thinks the adults are not really in charge in the GOP right now, but I think that's absolutely not true. They are just okay with the chaos right now because it's not impeding business and keeps people distracted. If MAGA gets too spicy and causes real civil unrest, we're going to find out very quickly who actually runs the show. And it ain't Donald Trump.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#236

Post by mindslight »

b112 wrote: post #233
mindslight wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the one writing ever-longer screeds. Perhaps you need to reflect on your own anger here? Factually, you have written a lot of things I do agree with. I'm not new to this rodeo. I've been around the left-right gamut. Reading Moldbug is actually what started the end of my rightist-fundamentalist phase. I've never been friendly to this entrenched corporate power structure that backs both major parties as if they…

Your first sentence is bizarre, considering this post is longer than you last. And really, more engagement is a bad thing? Come now. I feel you're still not getting it though. Because it's not about which side is worse, or who started it, or who's right about something, or who voted for who. It's about how this is discussed, how this is handled. That's the biggest problem there is. And yes, I said "barely", and it's…

> Your first sentence is bizarre, considering this post is longer than you last

Half my post was trying to explain some context where I am coming from. I was addressing the general tone of your post, and pointing out why I was not going to pick through each point line by line trying to tease out nuance. What's bizarre is for you to go here, as it seems exactly like a condemnation "keyed to knock down "the other guy".

As far as both the parties ? I just said that I have long acknowledged the commonalities. I had never voted for a major party candidate in a national election until I voted Biden in 2020. Doing so required swallowing a lot of pride, and I considered it as voting conservatively due to getting older. I can certainly imagine Trumpism's core message of "burn it all down" as being highly appealing to younger me - remember how I said I was telling aghast friends in 2016 that Trump had a good chance at winning?

You also dodged my direct question of whether a President Harris would be threatening war with Canada. Details like this are precisely why there is something here worth fighting for and not merely "both sidesing" it as merely a communication style.

Trying to move on to constructive topics, you say this is about "how" is it discussed. How exactly do you think the bare repetition of partisan propaganda should to be discussed, regardless of the actual intentions? Do we need to treat every commenter with kid gloves, detail the actual wider context, get lost in the semantics of whether it is a "legal name change" (even though the legality is not the actual reason to reject the name!), all the while hoping they will be receptive to those points, etc?

Because the way I see it, a comment that is merely a "correction" in terminology is nothing but flamebait - essentially the same thing as tone/terminology policing by the blue extremists. It's exactly the type of thing that needs to be shut down quickly if we're trying to have constructive discussions.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#237

Post by wat10000 »

Drupon wrote: post #230
wat10000 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine's constitution doesn't allow elections when martial law is in effect. The US constitution has no such clause, nor anything else that would allow for delaying or canceling elections. That's not to say it can't be done, but there's a huge difference in difficulty between doing what the country's constitution says, and doing the opposite. Especially in a country where elections are run by sovereign governments n…

Oh that's good to know that it's fine because it's iN ThEIr CoNStItUTIoN I guess everything in DPRK is fine because it's all legal their too

My point is about difficulty, not how “fine” it is. It’s really easy not to hold elections when your constitution says you can’t. It’s a lot harder when your constitution says you must, and also gives you no power over the governments who actually hold those elections. But obviously you’d rather grind your axe against Ukraine than actually discuss what you said before.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#238

Post by wat10000 »

bdangubic wrote: post #232
wat10000 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine's constitution doesn't allow elections when martial law is in effect. The US constitution has no such clause, nor anything else that would allow for delaying or canceling elections. That's not to say it can't be done, but there's a huge difference in difficulty between doing what the country's constitution says, and doing the opposite. Especially in a country where elections are run by sovereign governments n…

And how/who/where do we certify the election results “run by sovereign governments not under the control of the central government”?

Depends on the government, but usually their Secretary of State does it.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#239

Post by wat10000 »

foobarchu wrote: post #219
zzzeek wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

turns out lots of people "know" that the president has no say in the affairs of US states running elections

He doesn't, it's literally enshrined in the constitution. If he decides to violate that, it's him violating the constitution yet again, not proof that he has a say. It would also probably be the last straw for a lot of people who has been limping along on the belief in free elections.

More importantly, this isn’t a “who’s going to stop me?” sort of thing like having ICE violate people’s civil rights. The power isn’t there. ICE does what Trump says because the law puts them under his control and he metaphorically signs their paychecks. If Trump orders state governments to do something with elections, that carries no weight. There’s no legal obligation or tradition to comply, no paychecks involved, nothing that would compel them to do it unless they actually wanted to. He’d have to use force, and it would be a gargantuan effort that would spur great resistance.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#240

Post by b112 »

mindslight wrote: post #236
b112 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first sentence is bizarre, considering this post is longer than you last. And really, more engagement is a bad thing? Come now. I feel you're still not getting it though. Because it's not about which side is worse, or who started it, or who's right about something, or who voted for who. It's about how this is discussed, how this is handled. That's the biggest problem there is. And yes, I said "barely", and it's…

> Your first sentence is bizarre, considering this post is longer than you last Half my post was trying to explain some context where I am coming from. I was addressing the general tone of your post, and pointing out why I was not going to pick through each point line by line trying to tease out nuance. What's bizarre is for you to go here , as it seems exactly like a condemnation " keyed to knock down "the other guy…

So when I write at length, it's worthy of note. When you do, it's for "reasons".

When I shorten my responses, I'm now "dodging" questions, is that it? So no matter my post length, I'm in error?

And I directly answered your question, by saying there is no appreciable difference between US presidents, predicated upon party lines, when viewed externally.

There is no other way to answer, for no one on this planet, even those scornful of Trump, ever expected this 51st state nonsense prior to his term. No one. At all.

I know nothing of Harris, and even if I did, comparatively, Trump's behaviour in this respect was a surprise.

Do ypu think any Canadian thinks this will be isolated to this single administration?

Post reply on HN