301–308 of 308 posts
Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?
No it doesn't at all. Private corporations shouldn't be telling the government what it can and can't do. That's the job of the people. You want private corporation overriding your vote?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "lawful" always seems to get dragged out when people in power are doing some especially heinous rulemaking, like throwing a hissy fit over a single company trying to voluntarily draw a line at domestic surveillance and fully automated killchains.
A private corporation can choose not to sell to the government. A lot of them do exactly this. A lot of hoops to jump through. However, if they do sell to the government, they shouldn't have some sneaky way to exert control over decision making using their products. We're a country of laws, and for better or for worse, these laws are made by elected officials and those appointed by elected officials. Why an American…
Anthropic doesn't want their AI used for misaligned mass surveillance scanners and killbots, there are obvious reasons they might not want that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your court system wasn't designed for the Executive branch acting with actual bad intent. You're a country of laws, but if enforcing them takes months if not years... Then during that time, you're the wild wild west
This comment is hilariously incorrect. Courts stop the Executive branch all the time. You do not know what you're talking about.
As opposed to a compliant executive that voluntarily does what the courts tell them to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is hilariously incorrect. Courts stop the Executive branch all the time. You do not know what you're talking about.
I believe they’re speaking of a defiant executive, as in "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" As opposed to a compliant executive that voluntarily does what the courts tell them to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe they’re speaking of a defiant executive, as in "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" As opposed to a compliant executive that voluntarily does what the courts tell them to.
We have not seen a non-compliant executive in this country since FDR. People need to actually read the output from the Court and the associated response from the Executive branch, and not the news. I realize we a swimming in a soup of chaos about this current administration, but there has been no Andrew Jackson moment. This White House does something, and there is an injunction, and they back off. They have a pretty…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have not seen a non-compliant executive in this country since FDR. People need to actually read the output from the Court and the associated response from the Executive branch, and not the news. I realize we a swimming in a soup of chaos about this current administration, but there has been no Andrew Jackson moment. This White House does something, and there is an injunction, and they back off. They have a pretty…
Broad strokes, probably mostly accurate. In the margins, some of the deportation flights were in malicious violation of direct court orders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that mean? How does one come to a personal moral conclusion? Vibes? (I take "moral framework" to mean a principled stance that gives objective grounding for a moral judgement. I agree that we can come to a moral judgement without putting it through a systematic and discursive defense, and I reject the notion that there are many moralities or that they are arbitrary, but it is also true that diverging concep…
My moral framework can be different from yours. Me the individual can come to the conclusion that something is immoral when the rest of the group doesn’t agree with me. And (at least for my own moral framework) I should take action accordingly. So I don’t need a shared framework to make the claim that something is immoral (to me).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My moral framework can be different from yours. Me the individual can come to the conclusion that something is immoral when the rest of the group doesn’t agree with me. And (at least for my own moral framework) I should take action accordingly. So I don’t need a shared framework to make the claim that something is immoral (to me).
The second is that it isn’t very interesting to stop at “personal moral judgement”. You’re having a dialogue, right? So, if you want to have a dialogue, you must explain your moral reasoning. I don’t like your parent’s use of the term “moral framework”, because it does lends itself to a relativistic interpretation - though charitably, the parent need not be a relativist, and is merely acknowledging the different stan…