Live data from Hacker News

We Will Not Be Divided

notdivided.org

861–870 of 912 posts

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#861
post #631

Domestic mass surveillance might feel tolerable when you live in the country conducting it. But how would you feel about other countries adopting similar policies, and thereby mass-surveilling the American people? Because that's exactly what these policies authorize when applied to the rest of the world.

The bad news for American people is that "others" are pretty good at these technologies. When I read an important AI paper chances are all the names on it are non-American, even for papers from American labs. In a real war, this becomes problematic. Every nation has some bias but I think Americans have power poisoning for being the dominant power for so long. They think they are entitled to do anything and believe th…

Their "power poisoning" is warranted. The USA's military capabilities dwarf those of the rest of the world. There is not a single country on earth that can stand up to America militarily.

We are lucky that they never went full Roman Empire on us. That's only due to their own restraint. We may see them falter increasingly often as their economic power gets eroded by other nations. Just look at Venezuela.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#862
post #706
post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so now connect the mass surveillance system to an automated killing system that can blow you up in the grocery store because you're standing in line next to its target.

Yes but you would be dead before it can affect your quality of life so its unimpactful. The former can very much impact your life

the logical extension is that everyone should kill themselves right now so that they never suffer again

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what’s moral in a democracy? You?

Human beings all and each have the agency to make this choice for themselves.

So individuals have a “duty … to sabotage their country when it becomes immoral” according to individually-defined standards of morality? That seems like an unworkable way to run any society with more than a few people.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I have seen a lot of your posts on here about political topics, and they are always disingenuous, misleading, and geared towards providing a thin veneer of reasonability over any form of morality. > If Congress doesn’t want AI-powered killing machines, they’re the ones who have the right to make that call. You have it backwards, and you know it. If Congress wants to invoke natsec concerns to force companies to sell t…

> geared towards providing a thin veneer of reasonability over any form of morality

Arguing “morality” is usually pointless. There’s no need for discussion among people who agree on what’s moral. But where they don’t agree, invoking morality won’t get anyone anywhere.

It’s more productive to instead explain how certain policies follow from moral principles that we may not agree on, but we can at least acknowledge are broadly held in society.

> You have it backwards, and you know it. If Congress wants to invoke natsec concerns to force companies to sell to the federal government, then they have to explicitly say so

Congress did that back in 1950, with the Defense Production Act.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 Great article, it has a list of times it's been used to compel cooperation.

Ok. So what's the emergency prompting them to take control of Anthropic? Further, why would they also accuse them of being a national security threat in the same breath? Seems like if they're a threat they're also not someone you want working on national security. Especially under duress. That feels like a bad combination.

[deleted]

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selective Service System is evidence enough of the government's power to oblige participation in defence.... But if you're interested... https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

That link is specifically discussing actions the government takes in war. Like, a real, ongoing, war where it's accepted extraordinary actions may be necessary that conflict with peacetime rights to private property (it was written during World War 2).

[deleted]

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#869
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who are by far the largest budgetary expense for the tax payer not even top 3

You are 100% wrong. You listed entitlements. National Defense is half of all discretionary spending. Homeland Security is less than 1/6th the budget of DoD alone.

That's a typo, dhhs.

Regardless it's not an inaccurate breakdown of where your tax dollars go.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who puts their name on that list might potentially be a target. My first inclination is to read letters like this as a threat from employees to the employer. It says hey boss-men, this shite is not on. Signing anonymously undermines that message. I tend to read those signatures as as, I don't like this but it's not worth my job. I have no faith in the efficacy or even existence of "obstruct or delay" tactics…

> It says hey boss-men, this shite is not on. Signing anonymously undermines that message. No it doesn't. It says "Hey boos I'm telling you this shit is not cool, and there's nothing you can do to me personally because you don't know who I am." Let me put it differently. Suppose YOU are the boss. You company has 1000 employees and you receive a letter with 500 anonymous signatures saying "we fucking hate what you're…

> "Hey boos I'm telling you this shit is not cool, and there's nothing you can do to me personally because you don't know who I am."

Why does this change the calculus for management? They don't pay folks to be happy, they pay them to do their jobs. Threaten to take away the labour however and you create a bargaining position. That's how strikes and threats of strikes work. This letter is fundamentally different. For a start, have you considered the veracity of a list of anonymous petitioners? How do you differentiate the real thing from a made up list?

Post reply on HN