@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

Poorly-organized mobs can still engage in ethnic cleansing: see Rwanda. International law, to the extent it exists, found no trouble finding and convicting people for it.

An international body of third-party experts should decide what constitutes Palestinian land

We had that: international parties Sykes and Picot (with the assent of a few other powers) decided the land was properly British. Surely everyone there will agree to abide by this arrangement.

Sarcasm, if unclear, but I doubt you could get the parties involved to agree to binding international mediation for much the same reasons that fell apart to begin with.

I generally agree with you, I'm just observing it's a huge ask and probably a hard sell.

"Anytime anywhere" inspections is a pretty big ask. I can see why the West would want it, but I can't see any major power agreeing to it. I doubt the Russian inspectors in the US were ever allowed into Area 51, for example.

That presumes the US would be willing to fight and defeat the IDF (and also the other relevant parties) to enforce an outcome there, which seems laughable. It'd make invading Greenland (which by all accounts polled terribly) seem like a good idea, and isn't something a democratically-elected US government is likely to do.

How is America the victor in the 1948 (or choose a more recent one if you want) war between the current state of Israel and various Arab powers (including the Palestinians) in the former British Mandate of Palestine to legislate the outcome? It wasn't a party there.

Notably, the Nuremberg court never bothered to try Soviet officers for similar Red Army war crimes. Katayn, for example. Has "international law" ever been much more than vae victis?

I tend to avoid sequels for this reason. I think some of it is, for me, that the world building in a brand new story is really interesting, but sequels either drag along accumulated baggage of the world (Marvel of late has done poorly on this), or lazily skip over any new exposition within the narrative (this script was originally an episode for another TV show). Both end up being detrimental to the story as a whole. And sometimes you start running into the structural contradictions woven into the environment.

I think successful sequels have to do something to transcend the original story. Terminator 2 and Aliens both subvert the genre from horror to action movie IMO successfully. The Empire Strikes Back is a very different movie than Star Wars. But that isn't a guarantee of success: IMO all the Jurassic Park sequels fall short of the original in emphasizing "dinosaur eats humans" action over the original's balance with philosophical science fiction questions.

If you have the time, you could also structure it over time to fall within the IRS gift limit: This year they could each give you $19k without federal tax implications. Ask a real professional about capital gains basis changes and state implications, though.

A bit of a joke: the sets of people that see American forces as a proxy for Israel and those that see action against Iran as justifiable are pretty close to disjoint.

Sarcastically: if it's fair game for Iran to attack Israel through its proxy militia Hezbollah, then it's fair game for Israel to attack Iran with its proxy American forces.

If unclear, Anthropic is pretty clearly advertising themselves as "ones who cared", and yet was willing to contract with the government (which had previously lied to Congress about these activities, and would presumably have even fewer qualms lying to contractors) anyway, presumably with dollar signs in their eyes. Are we really talking principles here? Or are we just haggling about the price?

Leaning on other Gulf states like that works, until it doesn't: at some level of retaliation, they presumably will think it's easier to rip the band-aid off and support regime change.

mass domestic surveillance

What do people even mean by this anymore? Do people think they stopped after the Snowden leaks? I'm old enough to remember liking candidate "constitutional law professor" Barack Obama criticizing the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, then disliking his choice to promptly decide to continue and expand it once he was elected. Or tech companies opposing PRISM leaks before promptly jumping at the chance to (algorithmically, I'm sure) ban things that the Biden administration asked them to. Very stunning and brave moral record they've got going there.

I'm not sure I should trust Anthropic to be a better moral actor than the government here: they were willing to dance with the devil they already knew was doing this sort of thing, selling a product for which this is probably one of the clearest use cases. To be clear, I'm not the biggest fan of such programs continuing (although I can acknowledge they might be quietly stopping all kinds of bad actors), I'm just jaded from literal decades of "principled" stands against it mostly just sweeping things under the rug.

ETA:

Anthropic wanted contractual guarantees against things that are supposedly already illegal.

If I had to guess, Anthropic wants to be the ultimate arbiter of what "the law" says here (or at least, what their "contractual guarantees" mean). So does the administration (and I'm sure the judiciary is willing to fight them on that on occasion).

Thinking about it, this isn't exactly new policy: The second half of 1990 included "Operation Desert Shield", the operation just to relocate the assets for the actual Gulf War took almost 6 months, and wasn't quiet. The bombardment took a few weeks, and the actual ground invasion just a few days.

IIRC the last NDAA also had strong opinions on Chinese AI models, and presumably the companies behind them.

There are a couple of western nations who pretty strongly manage to avoid procurements with such foreign entanglements and presumably veto powers. The Americans are probably best known for it, but France also spends a lot on domestic-first procurement, which presumably avoids such clauses, and their exported hardware (Exocets, for one) have a few historical incidents of being fired at Western armed forces.

If it's longstanding DOD policy to refuse procurements with morality clauses, I think this would make at least some sense, but they haven't done the best job selling this. But the image of our corporate overlords demanding the right to overrule our elected decision makers and their military leaders seems a dystopian avenue, even for some definition of "autonomous weapons" or "mass surveillance", which nobody involved seems inclined to rigorously define. Imagine if Ukraine had to ask defunct Soviet arms companies before they could use Eastern Block hardware on invading Russians.

Charitably, I think Anthropic's request sounds reasonable, although the government has arguably deployed both types of systems in recent memory, and probably doesn't want to debate the finer points in court. Uncharitably, this is tech bros leveraging "morality" arguments to enshrine corporateocracy such that the government has to ask companies for permission before it can exercise it's usual government powers.

IIRC a paper from a few years back on Smallpox has caused most "produce DNA matching this sequence" printing companies to start checking for at least some examples of what people shouldn't be printing.

AFAIK the US didn't provide direct financial aid to the French in Vietnam or Libya (although it did provide aid to South Vietnam), but did get dragged into a French-started conflict in ways that involved active service members, which is in many ways worse than merely providing materiel.

If direct aid is your metric, Ukraine seems quite relevant: they've gotten hundreds of billions in materiel aid, including no small number of ABM interceptors.

Was there ever any good theory of "alignment" that went beyond "don't allow wrongthink"? As much as I love Asimov's laws of robotics, actually implementing them seems like a pipe dream. Even IRL humans are frequently conned into doing things they wouldn't with broader context, and it's unclear to me that it's even generally solvable.

I don't strictly fault them for focusing on what they could feasibly do, but I do for not acknowledging their uncertainty and the scope of the problem while claiming to be experts.

A good faith ranking at least conceivably puts the Anglosphere on top ("Murdoch was a long con by the Queen" is probably a bit far, though), followed by the rest of NATO. The French have gotten us into multiple wars (Vietnam, Libya, arguably other conflicts in Africa and the Middle East) with higher casualty counts than Israel even if you accept conspiracy theories. At the time, both World Wars had relatively strong isolationist movements who would argue our involvement there was similarly "serving foreign interests".

And I'd give honorable mention to Japan and Korea, which punch well above their weight culturally and (arguably) the US keeps getting yanked along to serve their "contain China" interests, even if many argue it's also in American interests. In fact, that's probably how most of these examples work anyway: convincing people that "$country interests are American interests".

IIRC the Somalis in Minnesota are not fans of the idea of an independent Somaliland.

Can anyone point to a historical (right- or left-) populist movement in a culturally Christian country that didn't eventually turn anti-semitic?

While if you look hard enough you can find a anti-Semitism anywhere, I don't think the American Populist Party of the 1890s ever gained strong such associations. And I'm less familiar with them, but most other populists and even strongmen I can think of in the Western Hemisphere don't IIRC have strong such associations either (Peron, Chavez, even Pinochet).

I see this point, but it's also true that the women's team has expressed far more political animosity for Trump than the men's team. "I have to invite them [too], even though they hate me [and won't show up]" was my first line of thought there, but I'll admit your reading is reasonable as well.