So if USA hadn’t interfered in the middle east or supported Israel, ever, the oil supply coming from the Middle East would be significantly less stable? How…?
Is anyone else getting regulatory capture play vibes from the media coverage of AI and data centers?
It would be awfully convenient for the current big players if friction was added to bringing additional large scale compute resources online. Existing data centers would be grandfathered of course…
I'm not even sure I'd point to "media coverage" when it is Anthropic's own employees stating plainly on Twitter that they think there is a >10% chance AI kills all humans within the next decade.
Given that “this is just like skynet!!!” narrative seems to drive sales and not impede them, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Nonsense. Of course. But for all non-tech-savvy this is a “bad” narrative in a good way. If it can kill humans in the future then it surely can make me a “what I would like in the 80s” photo, right?
I think that media coverage simply reflects the growing anxiety among the public about the capabilities of new models and what future awaits us. Personally, I think that this anxiety is justified.
If this leads to tough regulations about AGI/ASI (e.g., a permanent ban), I doubt that AI companies would benefit financially.
I don't picture new data centers being banned outright. I picture a lot more regulatory friction driven by public reaction which is in large part driven by media (which then also amplifies the perception of the public reaction).
Regulatory friction is generally considered beneficial to established companies, because it makes it harder for new companies to enter the market and for smaller companies to expand.
For example if in the 1960s computers became regulated because they will replace a lot of jobs or enable the building of advanced weapons or whatever, IBM would probably be in a very different position today.
Maybe I’m confused, but I thought whataboutism was more like “you are saying I am doing X bad thing? What about Y bad thing you’re doing, let’s discuss that instead”.
It’s a deflection technique, not a check on logical consistency.
> “you are saying I am doing X bad thing? What about Y bad thing you’re doing, let’s discuss that instead”.
no one is generally expecting or even asking for "let’s discuss that instead". what they are doing is trying to point out that your lack of of care about Y implies that you never actually cared about X in the first place but rather you only care about me doing X.
often times X is actually bad but human nature is such that no one actually cares about it while wanting to appear to when locked down on it. for this reason arguing about X directly is bad optics.
whataboustism is basically an effort to draw attention to the selective enforcement of norms, laws, morality, whatever. hypocrisy is implied.
It can also be used to derail a conversation. I.e. "I find subject X unpleasant, so I am going to imply that you don't care enough about subject Y, which has a passing similarity to it, so that the subject of the conversation turns to Y rather than X. I do not actually care about subject Y, but I won't say that out loud". See also "concern trolling".
I feel like most projects like this must be run by people who are independently wealthy(ish) already and are in it for the long run? Like if this style took off enough to mass produce they could eventually make a lot of money, but if they keep it niche they are never going to make significant money no matter how much they charge.
I could definitely imagine a smaller cheap plasticky version of this being pitched as a more intuitive way for kids to learn piano, maybe that's where they're aiming?
I don’t really care what the lake is called, but can we have some creativity, or at a bare minimum consistency? Gulf of America at least makes sense as a name swap, as it previously shared a name with a country and it still does after the change. Shouldn’t this at least be Lake New York?
Have you actually talked to people from other places about racism?
People in the Middle East and the far east and Africa are maaaassively more racist than the euro diaspora is today. How are you surprised that an Iranian is racist against Indians or whatever, that’s absolutely typical for that part of the world.
It equates Jews who were perfectly allowed to be in Germany until the N’s gained power and unilaterally eliminated their status for no legitimate reason, with people who are knowingly breaking perfectly good and long standing democratically created laws.
No Jew snuck into Germany, right? No Jew had the option of peaceably going back to their country of origin and refused, right?
And before you say that you aren’t referring to the German camps, you know very well that this is where the power of the term “concentration camp” comes from, and that power is why you invoked it.
Politics aside, Nobody, not even a coddled white collar criminal, deserves the documented torture, deprivation and horrible medical conditions leading to many deaths, of this paramilitary army, not operating under military rules of conduct, but seemingly impromptu and concealed rules and activities.
Terribly wrong, and concentration camps meet the operational definition, if not the "academic" one. Torture, suffering and death don't really care who and how. They are universally wrong.
People are people. Some get country club accommodations, even after conviction. Some get brutality "on ice".
Where are people being tortured? ICE is pulling off fingernails and shoving glass up urethras? ICE is chopping off hands and pouring scalding water on people? What are you calling torture?
How many deaths are you talking about?
What horrible medical conditions are you talking about? How long are these people waiting for a flight? Are they trying to avoid being flown home while this is happening, or is there a gigantic backlog?
What makes them paramilitary? Are they firebombing immigrant houses? Are they assassinating immigrant leaders?
Like if you guys wanted to get these people out but you just want it to be more civil or whatever, then yeah I’m listening, but you don’t! You want them to stay! That makes your hysteria seem motivated, because you aren’t ranting about how they should stay, you are ranting about implementation details, which as far as I can tell isn’t your core concern!
They are killing legal citizens, let alone immigrants. And happily loading up people to shithole prisons in unrelated countries like El Salvador. If you believe blackbagged in El Salvador is a pleasant experience, then as experiment I think I should kidnap you and force you there for a few months since its clearly not torture.
> It equates Jews who were perfectly allowed to be in Germany until the N’s gained power
The refugees who were illegally deported had a right to be in America until they’d had due process. It’s absolutely valid to compare the two cases. Particularly given our Japanese internment in the 1940s, while abhorrent, did not reach the levels of violence of today’s concentration camps.
What due process is missing in deportation cases? Serious question, I haven’t looked into it too much because I am quite allergic to hysterical coverage of an area and I start to tune out and assume the hysterical people are probably wrong (in addition to being concerned about demo change as I don’t really want my grandkids to live in Brazil without having relocated).
When the infraction is about whether they are supposed to be in a place at all, I surface level can buy that this is a special case and you don’t need to let them stay while it gets figured out as that pretty basically does not scale as an approach. And also, getting a flight to your home country isn’t imprisonment, fines or forced labor which is what the rest of due process applies to, right?
Is there some argument against that or do I automatically lose for not wanting to become Brazil (since wanting to become Brazil is what progressive Jesus wants or whatever).
> What due process is missing in deportation cases?
Every case where a judge has said ICE violated a court order.
> I surface level can buy that this is a special case and you don’t need to let them stay while it gets figured out
US citizens have been detained [1] and deported [2] and denied access to counsel or communication.
If this is fine, we don’t have the rule of law. (We don’t have habeus corpus.) Putting people in camps against their will outside the law, camps where they get injured and die and disappear, is quite literally a concentration camp. (It’s not a death camp or a labor camp, at least to our knowledge. But most Germans had about as much knowledge about what was going on at their concentration camps as we have visibility into El Salvador.)
> getting a flight to your home country isn’t imprisonment, fines or forced labor which is what the rest of due process applies to, right
They’re not only being sent to their home countries [3].
We have a system right now where Americans and immigrants with a legal right to be here can—based on race or religion—be disappeared to random places where they aren’t heard from again. These are absolutely concentration camps. Like, the Jews weren’t a sympathetic group to most people in the 1930s. There were plenty of reasons given for why they should be removed to a secure place until a more permanent solution could be worked out.
If we have an imperfect system we don’t have rule of law? When has anyone ever had a perfect system?
Why do you need to be so hyperbolic? It makes it hard to take you seriously.
Can you restate your case in a non-hyperbolic fashion, ideally while taking some breaths? I am listening, but I just can’t stomach this kind of hysterical rhetoric, and so far you haven’t made a case without it, nor has anybody else I’ve read.
> Every case where a judge has said ICE violated a court order.
I don’t trust the courts already, so I need to understand at a conceptual level what sort of due process is being ignored. And I don’t really understand why people on your side aren’t stating it like that generally, uuuunless they don’t really have a strong case (not saying they don’t definitively but based on what I’ve seen written about this topic generally that is my starting place mentally, if there are strong conceptual arguments, where are they hiding!).
What happened after the mistake was caught? ICE dug its heels in. Some of these cases are ongoing.
> What percent of cases does this happen in?
We don’t know. We don’t have adequate records. Judges threatening to hold the administration in contempt have been asking for these and getting stonewalled.
> If we have an imperfect system we don’t have rule of law?
When judges are ignored, and complain they’re being ignored, yes.
> Can you restate your case in a non-hyperbolic fashion, ideally while taking some breaths?
Not sure if this is supposed to be ironic.
The definition of a concentration camp is a prison for politically-targeted demographics. When ICE openly admits it uses racial profiling, imprisons Americans because of their race, and then refuses to correct its mistakes to the point of having hundreds of judges around the country threatening contempt, or, alternatively, refuses to produce documents even identifying who these people are and where they’ve been shipped, yes, you need to be flexible with the definition to the point that the Jewish removals in the 1930s—and certainly the Japanese internment in WWII—would struggle to qualify.
> I don’t trust the courts already
You should have opened with this. The executive overruling the judiciary is literally the definition of losing the rule of law.
> don’t really understand why people on your side aren’t stating it like that generally, uuuunless they don’t really have a strong case
I don’t have a side on this. I think we have an illegal immigration problem and a brownshirt/concentration camp problem. The fact that Trump is deporting a fraction of what Obama did with an order of magnitude more funds sort of points to the grift that’s being run. The fact that it’s being excused by his supporters underlines either their media illiteracy or that the illegal-immigration argument was cover for something coming close to ethnic cleansing. (It takes acrobatics to pretend e.g. Miller isn’t explicitly for this.)
Which is fine. It looks like Trump has abandoned the GOP, and the midterms will bring some stability to that.
It includes children, who were not aware that the law was being broken.
We used to have a carve-out for them, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The administration eliminated that. For them, the analogy is even more apt.
Incidentally: the term "concentration camp" was coined during the Spanish-American war, and used extensively during the Boer War. It aptly describes the Japanese internment camps in the US during the Second World War.
Serious question - would your ancestors from the 1700s agree that you should support the immigrants you are supporting? Or have you been taught that your ancestors were wrong and evil and that you should honor them by doing the opposite of what they believed?
Not the person you're answering to but the way I interpret their statement is
"my ancestors came here as immigrants in search of a better life 300 years ago. I honor that by helping those doing the same today."
Being American, especially back in 1776 (250 years ago!), was not about ethnicity, but about an ideal - a group of men on the North American continent decided that " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [0], and then literally put their lives on the line to protect that ideal.
America is, and has always been, a nation of immigrants. What unites it are the common values - in theory, the idea that everyone there has the right to live free and pursue their happiness, as opposed to the idea that everyone should serve the king because that is the will of God, which was the dominant idea in Europe in the 1700s.
With that view, I can see that supporting people who come to the US so they can be free as continuing what the original poster's ancestors started 300 years ago.
Do you think you are telling me something I haven’t heard before? I don’t mean that with attitude, I’m actually asking. Because you are just telling me the standard mass schooling version of the story. I used to believe this version myself, until reality presented me with enough contradictory observations that I felt the need to justify it for myself, and not simply take it as received wisdom.
Have you gone through and read the quotes from the well known figures that contradict the story? There are a lot.
The standard explanation is that they had some weepy romantic morality deep at heart which they tragically were unable to live in their flawed time.
Sure, that’s one possibility. Another possibility is that they did not anticipate people in the future so drastically taking what they said out of context, and so they weren’t sufficiently precise as to represent themselves in a way that made it through to today’s context with its meaning intact.
To me, the latter just seems like it probably happens all the time in history and so why not here?
And, to be clear, in this case what they would have meant in modern context is - all men are created equal does not refer to literally all humans on earth, it means that the born aristocrats are no better than anyone else and they shouldn’t get special privileges for it. That’s it. The duke’s son is no more deserving of government enforced privilege than the commoner’s son, because the commoner’s son may be more capable. That’s it. Not that all the races of the earth are the same. They just didn’t think that, men in the 1700s did not think that way. People in 1910 didn’t even think that way! The founders didn’t think they had to qualify “men”, they were just referring to the “men” of their group, one “man” of their group is not born higher than another “man” of their group, and this aligns with what we now know about population genetics, which is why it actually works better in some ways (I.e. if take a high performer, his sons are more likely to be high performers than the population, but you can only extend that so far, it doesn’t reliably persist past a couple generations and in some cases you get unlucky right away in the first generation).
And I haven’t seen this framing refuted, despite it being so, so much less of a just so story than the mainstream framing, and being successfully non-contradictory with the other extremely racist by today’s standards views and actions of the founders and their contemporaries, unlike the mainstream framing.
One big example of contradictory views that is not from the founding fathers era but is a good starting point. Did you know that Lincoln wanted to send them back? He didn’t want to free them and have them later integrate into our society. He wanted them gone, relocated, good luck see you later. He didn’t think that Africans and Europeans could live together, he didn’t think it could possibly work because they are too different by nature. But oddly that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the school curriculum. Lincoln is a hero, the man who freed the slaves. Well of course he was flawed, etc, but he had a good heart and he worked towards the good. Except what is good is defined by the current moral regime, which was entirely different from the one at that time. Lincoln would probably be shocked and appalled at how he is portrayed today. If he could only see what has become of New York City or Philadelphia, we could power the nation with his grave-spinning, which would surely be hypersonic in its rotational velocity.
You're allowed to pick and choose, and indeed should. We can honor and propagate their noble ideas about immigration in general, while rejecting their ideas about race and slavery and all that.
Well sure you can have whatever opinions you want generally and you can reject what your ancestors thought, certainly, you just don’t get to reject meaningful parts of what they thought while simultaneously acting like you are honoring them, that’s bullshit.
They didn’t think their racist views were ignoble. You can’t decide that they were wrong and then feel like you are honoring them by supporting immigration to which they would have been viscerally opposed. You can certainly support that immigration, no problem, but your ancestors would be ashamed of you. If you are okay with that (as am I in many respects), then great, but we can’t pretend you are honoring them by your action in that area. You could be honoring them in other ways in other areas separately, of course.
So if my ancestor was really into feeding the poor, I wouldn’t be honoring them if I fed a poor black person today because they were also racist and wouldn’t have thought that counted?
If your ancestor was against feeding poor black people because they were racist, then yes, absolutely, you wouldn't be honoring them by feeding poor black people.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't feed poor black people, you just can't pat yourself on the back for honoring your ancestor at the same time.
I don't really understand the disagreement. If you are performing an act which, if your ancestor were somehow magically in the room with you, they would respond to with horror and disgust, then you aren't honoring them. Performing your own present morality does not necessarily honor your ancestors, if they had a different morality.
reply