BobbyJo

"Can be used as a weapon" applies to nearly everything, and ceases to have any meaning. Even on a tank, they aren't considered a weapon, only the whole take together is the weapon, or the cannon alone.

I'm not sure what you're responding to. If you are making the claim that Agent Orange was indeed a chemical weapon, I'd disagree, but I think either perspective has points.

Is your argument that the resulting birth defects were intentional? If not, I'm not sure where you're going with your response.

I'm not arguing we were the good guys in Vietnam, just that calling Agent Orange a chemical weapon is a shaky claim. Not sure why you're putting so many other words in my mouth.

> is a little pedantic, they used agent orange to kill foliage to kill people...

Is a wheel a weapon because a tank uses it? I wouldn't consider the difference pedantry.

1) The US is not the only country to deploy chemical weapons. Are you forgetting all of WW1? It's the whole reason chemical weapons are a no-no now.

2) The US didn't use chemicals weapons in Vietnam. Agent Orange was used to kill off foliage, not as a weapon against people, and the side effects were unintentional and affected US troops as much as Vietnamese.

Edit: I originally noted WW2, but I was thinking of WW1's widespread use of things like mustard gas, and the resulting Geneva agreements.

> We must pursue advancements in AI to protect us against advancements in AI

Is this not true of technology as a whole? Very little of technology's breadth exists at the human interface. Most of it is made specifically to interface with other technologies, either to make them safer or increase their capabilities. That AI is making AI safer and more useful is no more notable than trucks being used to build roads.

Oh, you're someone else. Now I'm just confused why you responded to my question that was directed at someone else.

PPP is what matters financially, add on ethnic homogeny and familial presence in a culture that values both and staying becomes a lot more compelling.

You can't ignore the impact of China also becoming a better place to live as well. China is a different place no than it was 20 years ago, and the need to go overseas anywhere is probably felt less today than back then.

So you're abandoning your earlier argument about us bumping up against the laws of physics and instead arguing that AI won't make the economy more efficient due to frivolous usage?

That's plainly false, as that's just not how markets work over the long term. We only see distortions like this iver the short term due to investor subsidies.

The arguments can be the same but have entirely different hidden variables that make it fine to use the argument in one context and not the other.

Also, this ignores that the government works for citizens, no matter their race. Promoting racial equality among citizens is a function that the government might undertake. Pursuing policies that favor citizens over non-citizens falls in line with that same reasoning.

Is your argument that the world economy is running so close to theoretical maximum efficiency that AI can't improve it?

I got a 32gb M4 macbook air with the lower CPU core count, right before things got stupid. Can't even buy that skew now.

Only if you hold the view that AI will not lead to use using energy more efficiently.

Because they need SS and medicare, which is most spending at this point. The only choice in the last 40 years, that would have actually decreased spending, was Rand Paul, and he got crushed.

I implore you to simply talk to a few conservatives living normal lives in the real world. I am related to many and grew up in the south. I assure you, most are not nefarious.

> They ignore other activities that might be troublesome. Such as ignoring GOP sex offenses, GOP bribery in the oval office, unconstitutional actions by their executive, or needless wars that cost half a trillion dollars and weaken the US' national security

Conservatives, above all else, assume everyone in government is corrupt and terrible, hence wanting smaller government. That they can't reconcile that with their love of social security is a matter of self preservation, not malice.

That's a false dichotomy.

I use Claude and I find that it speaks in a very obfuscated manner when explaining things. It seems to make up jargon as it goes on top of spending a lot of tokens dancing around a point. I often find myself having to ask it to rephrase things, or speak directly about mechanism or consequence, in order to understand the point.

Economic regulations affect everyone. I had to fill out a tax form because I had to resell tickets to a convert I was unable to go to. I don't feel sorry that people sending money over the border have to do the same now.

Me and a Cofounder are building something along these lines on top of K8s. The wisdom that "if give the LLM clear boundaries and you get better results" definitely holds IME, even with frontier models like fable. It's impossible to specify all the guardrails you need to keep models from violating priors without writing the code yourself, so the only move is to remove their ability to do so, or to even recognize that the option exists.

Could this be because US gov healthcare spending takes place mostly via Medicare, which is specifically for people 65+?

Being weight X while gaining weight is a significantly different metabolic state than being weight X while losing weight.

> It is not pie in the sky

Define "pie in the sky", because you have described the utopia that every eco-socialist has been chasing for 100 years...

The problem that makes it infeasible isn't the math, or the technology, it's people. Communism would work beautifully... if everyone in the world was different.

So, walking is worse than unemployment? I'm just asking where the ranking is coming from.

> Well of course they should be. You have been brainwashed so much that you can't even conceive of a different world.

Assuming you are talking about free basic necessities: I can conceive it fine, I just also understand that conceiving doesn't mean it will work, and history has shown it won't. Me making the statement was itself conception no?

I can conceive of a million different economic systems, but I also understand most of them are infeasible, and the risk of running the experiment is extremely high, with little to gain in a my country, where obesity is a much larger problem than starving.

How is taking away their ability to earn money at all more humane than not giving them a car loan? I'm genuinely confused how you are ranking those two things.

If we want to stop illegal immigration, "not getting a car loan" and "harder to move money across the border" feel like the most humane ways to slow it down.

Plus, the drug trade coming in from Mexico is, in fact, a huge problem, not just for the US, but for Mexico itself. Mexico is run by cartels specifically because of how much money is made off selling drugs to Americans. This isn't some non-existent problem they are using as cover.

> Money laundering is an absurd concept. People should be free to transfer money to whoever they like, without permission.

This ignores that taxes are a thing that need enforcement. Its like saying basic necessities should be free, the world should be without pollution, or cancer shouldn't exist.

> Science doesn't work this way, someone could claim only reason World is successful because Chinese invented paper, so please don't go there.

Perfectly valid claim. It could be debated though, since you are talking about a centuries long diaspora of processes.

I'm talking about an architecture that was invented, published, and pioneered by US companies just a few years ago. Not really the same argument IMO.

> Regarding distillation, you can also say Anthropic and OpenAI stole /distilled books, articles, blogs from everyone who published things without knowing their work might be used against them

Yes. I would argue that anthropic et al are only able to exist because of the massive body of work in the anglosphere, both in books and online. That goes hand-in-hand with my view of the Chinese AI sphere.