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

Where things stand with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#731

Post by donkeybeer »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #693
donkeybeer wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option C: God doesn't exist as far as is currently known

Option D: God may exist but has no perceivable after consequence and doesn't take part in any aspect of our day to day lives which are governed by physics (Deism) Option E: God may or may not exist but once again, has no effect on our lives. (agnosticism) So all option C), D), E) [I don't think that the concept of hell/heaven exists in it] have the same impact IMO that esentially there isn't any consequence on our da…

Yes all of those options would be equivalent from our point of view so you can believe in any of those as far as best present evidence goes.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#732

Post by pohl »

hglaser wrote: post #18

It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue. When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds. Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic an…

Aren't shifts in the Overton Window are qualitatively different from attempts to avoid the wrath of an organized crime syndicate in power?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#733

Post by the_af »

dotancohen wrote: post #640
adrian_b wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump has already claimed that he has destroyed all nuclear capability of Iran at the previous attack done by USA against Iran. Claiming now that this other attack has the same purpose makes certain that USA has lied either at the previous attack or at the current attack. When the government of a country is a proven liar, no allegations about how dangerous another country is are credible. Moreover, just before the at…

[flagged]

That's cherry-picking. The Iranians said things, Trump said some other things, and your comment chooses to selectively believe some things the Iranians said (that their nuclear program wasn't entirely dismantled, in contradiction to Trump's claims) but not others (that they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons and the late Khamenei considered them immoral). It's now believed Israel was planning to kill Khamenei regardless of any nuclear talks, and forced the hand of the US.

Iran wasn't a threat to the US.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#735

Post by qsera »

the_af wrote: post #717
qsera wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learn? Can you learn to live without eating? Do you know what happens when an economy collapse?

> Can you learn to live without eating? Would you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Especially if you weren't really starving, just preemptively stealing their supplies? All this talk of hoarding and taking resources by force used to be the stuff of villains. When did it become normalized?

Have you ever gone through a whole a week without eating anything? Have you seen your kids go through that?

If don't, then I will have to say you got no idea about what you are talking about..

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#736

Post by the_af »

FpUser wrote: post #705
the_af wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do believe there are major technical impediments; other than a modern attack sub reaching that far undetected I can't think of how they would do it. The US is the only nation that can effectively project power so far away from its borders, almost anywhere in the world. Furthermore, you mentioned this in response to "helping Venezuela", but even damaging a carrier (something technically very, very difficult for Russ…

>"would not have helped Venezuela one bit" I think it would, meaning that right from that exact minute the US and Russia will be very busy and Venezuela left to it's own devices. Does not mean Venezuela would feel any better of course.

This is entering fantasy land.

There's no effective way of Russia to militarily help Venezuela and strike any US carrier. Same with China. You haven't proposed any because there is no feasible way.

Even if they could, such action would have been followed by the US knocking Venezuela out and taking them out of the equation. A neighboring ally of an actively engaged hostile power wouldn't be "left to its own devices".

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#737

Post by gcanyon »

milemi wrote: post #384
atmavatar wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my favorite exchange was the following: Professor Hathaway: "I want to start seeing more of you around in the lab." Chris Knight: "Fine. I'll gain weight."

Do you run? Only when I’m being chased.

Ooh, I can't believe I missed this one.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#738

Post by RGamma »

fzeroracer wrote: post #410
hereme888 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just patently false. Tons of executives and board members in industry absolutely care. Some are in it just for philanthropic purposes.

Where are they? The vast majority of executive and board members are kissing every inch of this administration's ass.

It's best to work with the system, while you think you can still influence it.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#739

Post by the_af »

qsera wrote: post #735
the_af wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you learn to live without eating? Would you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Especially if you weren't really starving, just preemptively stealing their supplies? All this talk of hoarding and taking resources by force used to be the stuff of villains. When did it become normalized?

Have you ever gone through a whole a week without eating anything? Have you seen your kids go through that? If don't, then I will have to say you got no idea about what you are talking about..

> Have you ever gone through a whole a week without eating anything? Have you seen your kids go through that

Have you? And did you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Did you believe the best course of action was to fight your neighbors?

Your ridiculous analogy doesn't even apply to the US, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. In your imagined scenario, are they the poor starving family who must kill and steal to survive?

Dude. Think hard before getting backed into absurd metaphors.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#740

Post by WorldMaker »

endofreach wrote: post #449
lukan wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he did know he was going to work for the military. "I’d be joining a contracting company for the Department of Defense." (But interesting article otherwise)

To be fair, the name of that Department used to be very confusing...

The name of that Department was chosen to be aspirational, to encourage it to try to keep within its Constitutional guardrails, to keep it focused on the right mission.

Sure, it often didn't live up to its aspirations and a lot of the fence posts of those Constitutional guardrails got moved, but wearing those aspirations on its sleeve left some room for people to challenge it and openly criticize it by reminding the Department of its guardrails and its mission.

The name change is disrespectful to the Constitution, if not terrifying for other reasons.

Post reply on HN