magicalkittycat
No bio...
User ID: 3762
While I wish to be hopeful this could be the beginning of the end of Israeli control over domestic politics, I'm still quite wary. Trump is very unique. In a "only Nixon can go to China" sense, perhaps only the egotistical chaos beast with a base single mindedly devoted to him rather than a consistent idealogy can ignore Israel. The Israel idealogues are simply outgunned by the massive blob of Trump fandom. They tried their best to sway him but the chaos beast did what it does best, and betrayed them out of boredom and frustration. He could probably even threaten to invade Israel like he did with Canada and Greenland and his base would barely move, just like the latter.
But this is a Trump thing. He radically reshifted politics and turned up the entertainment dial from a 5 to an 11. Consistent clear and reliable policy is out, doing whatever you want whenever you feel like it is in. But can the next presidential hopefuls capture that magic? I doubt it. There's a 60% chance the 2028 pick is either Vance or Rubio. Rubio is an obvious "return to establishment and respectability" pick, and Vance is a slimy little worm hanging out of Trump's ass instead of really pulling in people much by himself. Vance seems to view anti Israel politics as the future, but will he stick with that when the winds blow back? Well, he hasn't stuck with much else so I'm doubtful.
But there is that ~40% chance it is someone else previously unseen. Maybe that someone else will be a Mega Trump who is even more entertaining and chaotic, in which case it depends on their own unique beastness in how much the Israeli interests can sway him. Or maybe it'll be a return to form politician who disavows the increasingly flailing Trump approval rating and doesn't need any swaying from the Israel side to begin with. Who knows.
And that's of course assuming the Republicans win again in 2028, which is the less likely result. The Democrats are waking up far more to Israeli abuse of politics (even if the older holdouts cling on to their cries of antisemitism) to the point that supporting Palestinians has become a culturally embedded sign of moral goodness as Armand Doma points out. I can't imagine they're going to be too friendly to Israel. But again you never know.
While someone like Putin is definitely more directly evil than Netanyahu, the amount of control that the Israeli lobby has over western governments is far more superior.
Russia might have Trump and Vance in their corner, but they don't have much else in the west including many of the other high ranking republicans. Russia can get a lot of US help effectively cut to Ukraine, they can get delays in weapons sales to the EU for donations, whatever, but even our cowardly house is willing to have many break with Trump here. They can't even get Musk to let them stay on Starlink.
You can get up there and call the Russians a bunch of evil orcs and no one will cancel you. You can say that Putin deserves a drone strike (after all he does) and everyone sees it as normal discourse. Hell some of the more idiotic Americans have even ended up hurting or boycotting the anti war Russians or Ukrainian interests and other groups because of their stupid bigotry that can't tell anyone apart properly and barely anyone cares to acknowledge that. Like it's not even boycotting Russia the state, it's boycotting random businesses they thought were run by Russian immigrants.
Meanwhile you're basically not allowed to boycott Israel the state in quite a few states. The idea of cutting aid to Israel is laughably out of reach. Like we literally give a country with very cheap university and universal healthcare a bunch of money and only recently has there even been a slight threat to that. DOGE got up there claiming to be concerned about waste and cut PEPFAR, a program for sick poor people in impoverished countries and had nothing to say about giving our billions to one of the richest countries in the middle east?
And unlike with Russia, you can't say anything about the Israelis or Jews without the threat of bipartisan destruction headed your way. While we're accepting of the idiotic anti Russia bigots who can't grasp the concept that many Russian Americans are actually against the Putin regime, we're so unaccepting of anti Israel commentary that even the most reasonable and facts based criticism is shut down. And you have absolutely no chance to get away with that same exact idiotic bigotry when applied to Jewish Americans, despite the higher rate of support for the respective countries.
Trump controls the party, not the other way round, but Thune at least completely resents Trump and refuses to be controlled by him.
So he doesn't control the party?
Neither of them, nor the party itself, has any means of applying leverage to Roberts, who sits on his hands doing bupkis and denying the only legitimate use of his court (disputes between states).
Do you think that if the Republican controlled Congress passed a bill with clear and explicit rules around AI national security regulation and Trump signed them into law, that Roberts would strike them down? If you don't think that then he has no relevance to this question and we're back to "republicans could do it if they wanted to".
And at the very least they could try. Trump has already shown he doesn't care about trying unconstitutional things with his tariff policy, so why does he not apply the same process in implementing a clear and consistent AI policy? The easy answer is "he doesn't want to."
He wants tariffs so they'll be pushed through time and time again with different obviously flimsy excuses each time one gets struck down. He doesn't want clear and consistent AI regulation, so they don't bother.
magicalkittycat
14d ago
At least the Trump admin was arguably elected on a clear mandate to prosecute the culture war, which means that in some sense they would be doing their job (if they penalise an organisation for employing her).
Consistently over and over again polling suggests Trump won on economic grounds. Voters are constantly saying it's about the economy, the most common signs against Harris were about the economy (Harris high prices, Trump low prices), and the most effective ad buy was explicitly portraying Harris as a culture war obessive while Trump cared about "real problems". That last part where it says "Trump is for you" isn't about doing the right wing culture war, it's about tax cuts for middle class families.
Even the most explicitly culture war related ad was successful because it went with we don't do culture war, we do economics as the underlying theme. The idea that Trump won off the backs of doing culture war prosecution is completely false. Voters were upset about the economy.
magicalkittycat
14d ago
Would you feel comfortable if someone said the same thing about you? "I believe KMC seems he would touch my child inappropriately, and I have no requirement to wait for him to actually do anything to a child before I judge him as a child predator".
Do you think their personal vibes alone is enough that they can justifiably say KMC is likely a child predator? Heck "He supports the Epstein regime so he's a threat to children" is arguably more solid than "she has blue hair so she wants to destroy the US" cause at least the Epstein coverup is directly about child abusers.
magicalkittycat
14d ago
She seems a security risk in that she likely does not think the United States should exist as an independent sovereign entity,
Has she said that? Your "likely" is carrying a lot right now.
probably believes in nonsense like open borders, socialism, feminism,
At least the first one was meaningful as a security risk if true (emphasis on if). This is just considering anyone with ideas you don't like as a threat to the nation.
magicalkittycat
14d ago
This is standard ITAR and EAR rules. And yes, other countries could recruit people to build it there. Still illegal for me to in any manner transfer ITAR or EAR restricted designs to China or South Sudan. I can transfer it to any US person; by which they mean citizen, green card holder or asylumee.
There is an easy and obvious workaround especially given that it is on the internet, so these specific rules would not be meaningfully effective. So why were they chosen and not something far more extreme that would directly achieve the intended effect?
Luckily if there was a national security issue, Anthropic willingly took down Fable for everyone instead of complying with ineffective halfway measures.
In a better world there'd be some "clear, consistent, and logical rationale" standard bureaucracies are held to.
Republicans control all three branches right now, they don't have to sigh and say "ugh if only we had that better world". They can make it, right now! Now you and me, we can sigh and say that. Cause we know that this administration doesn't care to make it any better either. And most likely the next one won't, and the next one after that, and so on.
But the only way for the better world to come is to have people in power who actually want that better world. We haven't had that in a long time, and we probably won't for a while.
magicalkittycat
14d ago
In principle, Anthropic agrees the government should control when releases are made and models are recalled. Obviously it'd be better if this were done by some objective standard than fits of pique and grudge, but there's the world we want vs the world we have.
That doesn't answer why only Anthropic is considered dangerous and no other model is considering that as Yudkowsky has pointed out, anti jailbreak security that would stop dedicated foreign governments just does not exist for any of them https://x.com/allTheYud/status/2065889346302226530
Does the government just think Fable is that far ahead of the rest?
I mean... They should
Now I do think it would most likely work if they have enough but I can also understand why they would be hesitant regardless. Giving the bully your lunch money could be a good way to incentivize him coming back for more. Still given the likely short timeline (especially if we consider in the midterms that the house will probably be lost and the Senate has a high chance too), it's likely worth it.
magicalkittycat
14d ago
Expert or not, she is clearly a compulsive culture warrior with alignment opposite to the current US administration.
Well you're probably right that the Trump admin cares about more the culture war than meritocracy and coherent national security policy regarding our most important industry. Real shame though.
magicalkittycat
14d ago
Some of her proven credentials are right there in the first paragraph
Previously a member of @stake, she created the bug bounty program at Microsoft[1] and was directly involved in creating the U.S. Department of Defense's first bug bounty program for hackers.[2][3] She previously served as Chief Policy Officer at HackerOne, a vulnerability disclosure company based in San Francisco, California,
And there's more details below. A pretty long and successful tenure at Microsoft
From September 2010 until May 2014, Moussouris was the Senior Security Strategist Lead at Microsoft,
Then as said, chief policy officer at HackerOne
And then worked with the DOD helping the Pentagon and Air Force under her new company Luta Security
Moussouris followed up the Pentagon program with "Hack the Air Force". HackerOne and Luta Security are partnering to deliver up to 20 bug bounty challenges over three years to the Defense Department.
The government even used her as a technical expert before!
She was invited as a technical expert to directly assist in the US Wassenaar Arrangement negotiations, and helped rewrite the amendment to adopt end-use decontrol exemptions based on the intent of the user.
magicalkittycat
14d ago
Dean Ball had a really interesting take on it https://x.com/deanwball/status/2066499769833341419
AI is licensed now, but the requirements change constantly and are always a secret, even to the administration itself, which will discover the rules spontaneously in real time as it reacts to events. This means also that the rules are in practice stricter and more roughly enforced for organizations the administration does not like.
And a more interesting way to read it is, well what if that's the point? Coming out and saying "here are the rules and regulations" means the Trump admin has to play by them as well. Meanwhile some vague there is no regulation except when we say there is which we may or may not do policy gives them a lot of power to boss around the companies/owners they don't like and favor companies they do.
If you are working on sufficiently powerful technology with dual-use applications, then you work for the War Department. There is no option for you to continue your preferred work while licensing only peaceful civilian applications of your product.
Then why is only Anthropic targeted and why only foreign nationals? If it's a truly such a terrible danger, it would be trivial for a Chinese or Russian operation to either recruit some American or just bypass identity restrictions. Not to mention of course that some Americans might also want to use it for bad stuff on their own.
If you piss off the wrong person, you're screwed. Some people will see defeating you as a stepping stone to greater power and influence. Some people will work to destroy you simply out of spite.
True. Not how it is supposed to work in the US, but true. Becoming increasingly blatant as well.
Anthropic has scientific geniuses, Anthropic has an Oppenheimer, but does Anthropic have a General Groves? How far do you think Oppenheimer would have gotten without General Groves?
They probably do have lots of government contacts. We're still supposed to be a rules based society with a free market and government should be able to give a strong (and consistent!) argument when it meddles.
If you are trying to convince the government that you are not a security risk, do not hire people like this and present them as neutral experts. (No seriously, what the actual fuck were they thinking?)
What's the problem with her? Moussouris is a proven expert on information security with major relevant achievements in the field (including pioneering the DOD's own bug bounty program).
You don't get to decide what counts as a security risk and what doesn't. That is the job of the government and the political process.
Of course Anthropic doesn't get to make the decision there, but the executive branch does not have the unilateral authority to simply declare anything and everything a security risk as it pleases either. There should be a clear, consistent, and logical rationale when the government takes a drastic emergency measure like that.
Have we seen a clear, consistent, and logical rationale?
The president does not care about your ethical concerns. You think you know how much he doesn't care, but he actually cares much less than that.
Yes, everyone, even the general Trump defender, is well aware that he has a very limited sense of ethics and morality. I'm sure Anthropic could make this all go away if they slipped him some 24 karet gold statues and a few million dollar dinners hosted at Mar a Lago.
But is that how we really want the main industry holding up the American economy right now to be treated? The stakes are so much higher here than his traditional shenanigans.
magicalkittycat
15d ago
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 40+ times, clearly I need to be in a guardianship. As another comment pointed out, even by the end of the month (not just Friday) the strait being opened isn't even at a third chance. It might happen sure, but that people aren't willing to bet much for it (without accounting for the inevitable last second insider betting that will occur when there's an actual real agreement for once) shows how little trust anyone has in this new claim.
As Anthropic pointed out in their own release, the logic here by the Trump admin if consistent would basically apply these limitations to most if not all other models.
Is there another motive at play then? Well, it'd ordinarily be hard to say. But well, let's just go see what current leadership is saying about anthropic.
Now this isn't a straight up admittance this is for retaliation reasons, but they aren't doing themselves any favors here either. Why bring that up? It's obviously drawing a connection that you absolutely should not want drawn if there wasn't an ulterior motive you want to subtly hint at. At best it's an incredibly stupid thing for Hegseth to be saying right now.
Some former officials are even more explicit that the treatment seems to be from something else. Again, something you would hope your former officials would not be stupid enough to post, obviously drawing connections that you should not want drawn unless the entire point was to make it blatant without going past complete deniability.
magicalkittycat
21d ago
I think the best option is to simply raise the retirement age. There wasn't some big reason for it to be at 65, that was just the age of the federal railroad pensions. And they already raised it before, the full retirement age now is 67.
If there's any age it should be set at, it should be one where a substantial number of people are no longer able to be meaningfully employed. That way it is truly an insurance for old age, as the name implies. That more and more people are continuing to work while collecting benefits is proof that the age is not set properly for insurance purposes.
People who are crippled early can collect disability benefits as a form of early retirement, something we already did unintentionally back during the great recession.
magicalkittycat
21d ago
It's not that it's not literally the same coins, it's that people get out more than they put in.
I also get more out of many investments than I put in, I'm still entitled to it.
Ultimately the scheme was designed in such a way as to rip off the taxpayers of the future to promise gibs now. Those future taxpayers are all grown up and recognise that they are being ripped off and that the economics are going to leave them holding the bag.
Absolutely. I agree with you that it was a terrible idea and should never have been done this way. It also was done this way, and government should not renege on promises if it can be helped.
Even the most principled small government activists came asking for their share like Ayn Rand. Some leftists tend to say that she was a hypocrite for this, but I disagree. You can believe that taxing your money is a bad idea and also accept that ultimately they did tax your money and want them to fulfill the promises they made.
That would be nice but I'll believe it when I see it.
I cleverly used examples that we already have (at least to some degree).
Automated food production? Already the case for many steps and products, both at the farms themselves, and in preparing/packaging/etc. Combine this with self driving trucks (self driving cars are already looking better than humans like with Waymo, probably not too long for the trucking industry to start getting more automated) and even stuff like drone deliveries from store to house, and maybe in 20-30 years there will barely be any humans involved in getting food from the fields to your home. Heck, you might not even be a part of that process, COVID has made grocery deliveries really cheap and I use them from time to time and that's with human drivers still not the drones yet.
Medical care? Ok sure a lot of it will remain human, patients will want a human doctor to talk to and a human nurse to look after them but automation is already here and getting better. In all sorts of ways even. Like I got a sleep study recently and all the devices they put on me could read my pulse, detect my breathing, etc without a human monitor. And an auto generated report from what I can tell! Yes a human was there to set it up and look over it, and an expert looked the results and the report but it was mostly technology.
Heck technology even makes a lot of things possible that wouldn't be before. Consider the sleep study again and how they had constant monitoring of my pulse and breathing and oxygen levels. A human doctor, even if they taped their end of a stethoscope to me and listened all night long wouldn't be able to record with nearly as much accuracy as the machine can.
Now of course, automation still has a long way to go. But given the miracles we have already achieved and the amazing standards of living we already get from it, I don't think we should be so doubtful.
Heck one of the only reasons why automation hasn't already solved the crisis is that our living standards keep ratcheting up to match the increase in productivity. Like we're at the point where internet is being considered a basic human right despite most not even having it ~30-40 years ago. Imagine going back to the 1980s and telling people the Internet will be considered a human right. Many would be like "whats the internet?". That's how much we've ratcheted.
We don't need to solve aging, we just need to automate enough work that good living standards can be maintained despite a shrinking and aging population. Like does it really matter if the seniors at a nursing home get their food cooked by a sweaty 16 year old vs a (possibly even higher and more consistent quality) automated cooking machine? Does it really matter if the medical treatment and analysis they get is done by (possibly even higher and more consistent quality) machines and not extensive human labor?
Not really.
In many sectors "build another machine" is already far more efficient than throwing another human laborer in (to the point some run lights out/near lights out), so birthrates and youth stop mattering for them as much. As we automate more and more, this will become increasingly true of the general economy.
magicalkittycat
21d ago
Publicly funded retirement is a privilege
In the US at least, social security and medicare is an entitlement. You essentially earn "points" (not literally but figuratively works similar) in the program the more taxes you pay into it while working, and then come time of retirement or disability you get benefits paid out based off how many "points" you have.
There is an implicit, and in many ways explicit, agreement that this is earned. Some people try to argue against that by pointing that the cash you get out isn't the same cash you put in, but that doesn't actually change anything in the agreement. Money is fungible, it doesn't matter where it comes from whether it got stored in a big bank over the 40+ years of work or it went to seniors of the time and the money comes from workers today, the seniors of today earned their "points" in the benefits system and want to see the obligations promised to them by the government fulfilled.
The correct answer to this was for the government to never make such a promise to being with, not to rip people off.
Alternatives like "letting them die", or "trusting that families can always take care of them (they can't)", or even something truly drastic and inhumane like "euthanasia for everyone at 75" are going to either produce tremendous innocent suffering, or are radically contrary to most people's moral instincts.
Anti-old policies have a greater issue than just morals for unknown vulnerable strangers. Basically everyone has someone old in their life they love (I have both parents and an aunt) who are still independent right now but might not be in the next decade or two and it's something I really am having to plan for.
But beyond even that, while younger folk like me might want to deny it we are all aware we will get old as well. Voting in anti old policies is moronic then, it's literally voting against my future self. Euthanasia at 75 means I die at 75, and that's assuming the number doesn't ratchet down.
Sure my adult children might be able to care for me but more and more people don't like that, they don't like being independent on their kids and I don't like the idea either. Funding it through taxes on everyone essentially does the same thing, my kids pay a little for every senior and all the other kids will pay a little for me.
Really the bigger answer is automation and zoning reform. We can raise our overall quality of life despite shrinking and aging populations because robots do the labor (as automation has already been doing for a few centuries now) and zoning reform can help create accessible nice homes for the old to move to so young people with kids can have an actual house.
Being hit by cops is a physical action in the conflict, and its fairness is a moral judgement. Being charged for dubious reasons is a legal action after the conflict. There is no relation between these things. Both, either or neither could be true for all I know, but half of the reason you're catching so much flak is that you keep arguing against the photo demonstrating the latter when your original claim was that the photo provides no evidence for the former
It obviously has no evidence for the latter claim. But also without surrounding context, it doesn't really have evidence for the former either.
Imagine if a suspect says "I have a gun and I am going to shoot up all the cops here". The cops obviously rush him down and try to subdue them. They believe he is resisting (maybe he is actually resisting or maybe he is just frantically trying to block their efforts but the movements look like resisting in the heat of the moment) so they're hitting at him trying to get him to stop.
Could one call this unfair? No.
The other half is that you keep saying that he "double-checked" your use of ChatGPT and are using that as evidence. What he was demonstrating there was that ChatGPT contradicted itself (it told you that the claim was false, but later told him that it doesn't know whether it's true or not) and thus its opinion should be accorded zero weight
Those are functionally the same thing under it. If someone says "there is a panda outside" and you look and find no panda, you can reasonably conclude the claim as false. But if someone asks "there is a panda outside, do you know if this is true?" then you can't say you know for sure until you have a check.
(the explanation for the contradiction, incidentally, is that chatbots are shameless liars and sycophants).
And that check is the real difference. I went and used both my wording triggers it to search the internet. His wording does not trigger the search. ChatGPT does not look out the window for a panda with his wording.
If you add just three words before his wording, "search the net", ChatGPT says it can not be verified as true and is a meme wording.
No—the specific caption claim is not established as true; without the exact photo it can’t be verified, and the widely shared “charged with assault for blocking a cop’s punch with his face” wording is generally a sarcastic meme rather than a documented charge description.
It looks outside and can't find a panda.
.In case @stoatherd's second explanation is correct, and you are very confused about the meaning of some of these words: the verb "charge" has multiple meanings. The meaning of "charged" assumed in the context of "charged for bruising the officer's knuckles" is meaning 6 ("someone formally accused him of a crime"), not meaning 12 ("someone ran at him with the intent of attacking him in close combat").
Yes I understand that, why do you think I said court documents would suffice as evidence.
magicalkittycat
22d ago
- The average person who supports people being able to abort Down's syndrome fetuses yet views eugenics as fundamentally wrong is a person who simply does not make the connection that those two things are related in any important way.
There's an easy way to resolve this if one takes the term eugenics to carry an implicit meaning of an external authority or pressure on the parents.
Which given the definition of eugenics you can often find has something like this in it.
the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the populations' genetic composition
It does seem like a valid interpretation that it's an external force doing it for their Greater Cause as opposed to the parents own decision regarding what QOL they are willing to accept in raising a child.
magicalkittycat
23d ago
I didn't lie about what he said, I addressed his specific claims. There has yet been no evidence presented that the guy was charged for bruising a cop's knuckles while blocking. But even if that was the case and he was charged for it, there's also no evidence it's the only thing he was charged for.
Perhaps he flashed a weapon. Perhaps he threatened to hurt one of the cops. Or something else like that. Maybe he did something that the cops rightfully thought needed subduing, and he was charged with flashing a weapon + resisting arrest or whatever. I don't know, no one has presented a single thing about the case beyond "guy on X said so".
The idea that he was unfairly abused from the picture is unsubstantiated then. Cops are supposed to subdue potential threats, and police doing their jobs properly is ridiculously more common than the extreme police brutality alleged.
Whether their behavior is appropriate is highly conditional on the suspect's actions. A photo of a cop rightfully subduing an apparant threat can look very similar to one of unfair abuse.
The language thing notwithstanding: you are lying, again. I did not "double check". I copy-pasted a thing from ChatGPT to show that your standard of "checking" with AI is nonsense. That was my entire point, as I've now explained to you infinity billion + 1 times. Why are you still pretending otherwise?
You might not have intended to but you did double check. You asked if it had any knowledge about the case and it did not. That's a double check. If it was real then it might have known about it and told you.
magicalkittycat
23d ago
Those claims are related since saying the cops response was unfair is conditional. After all cops subduing someone they believe to be dangerous is expected and desired behavior from cops.
If the only charge is "they bruised a cop's knuckles when blocking" then it would probably be unfair. But there has been no evidence presented that is the case. Why did the cops do that? Why specifically him? Like most accusations of police brutality, it's probably because he actually did something that the police rightfully thought needed subduing.
This whole conversation is just the result of the growing victimization crisis we have in society. Us men are in a better spot now than throughout all of history, and yet just like with everything else all anyone can do is be angry and cry that things don't match up with their ahistorical fantasies of the past.
The average man of history was not some rugged chad forging their way into the wild west nor were they the rich royal with their pick of the wenches. No, the average man lived crappy lives with only the crappy people around them in their hyperlocal area. Food was scarce, medicine was laughable, the only women you would get with were just the fellow peasants you happened to be around and most of your kids died before you even bothered to name them.
Now we live in a time of abundance. I met my wife through the Internet and we lived several states away at the same time. We hit it off in personality and interests and we have children. Before, I would have just been forced to pair with whatever local peasant was available and now I get someone who matches with me well instead. It's not to say it's perfect at every point, but any and all relationships between two different individuals will have areas where they differ and don't match perfectly. The soul mate is a lie and compromises must be made sometimes. She is not my perfect fantasy wife and I'm not her perfect fantasy husband, we're humans not dreams.
Perhaps the before system was better for the loser men who enjoy a win by default. A much lesser and lower quality win, but at least it's a win, something they can't get now. If there was a historical acknowledgement of the downsides there is an argument to be made that yes, for some people it was better. And yet what I see of these loser men today is that they want it all and won't settle. They want the abundant choice of having a top notch beauty who fulfills all their fantasies brought about by modernity, but they also hate that abundant choice means they have to match up as well. But they don't, won't, and can't because they're still the peasants like always. It's often accompanied of course with porn addled unrealistic standards of womanhood too, meaning even the weak concept they might have of settling and compromising has still been tilted towards the insane.
And yet many more men want to come to the US and other western nations (or Western like nations such as Japan) than those who want to leave. It's obvious why. Because as much as people want to complain and complain, they do truly understand that life is better here. Immigration levels are the ultimate rebuttal to anti west sentiments, the 2nd and 3rd worlders want to be here, we don't want to be there. Even when Americans do leave, it's almost always to other western nations. And even when they do move to non western nations, that is still mostly done by utilizing their immense wealth disparity to explicitly avoid the average life the natives there hold. They live in gated communities with security.
More options
Context Copy link