stale2002

> nor is it a universal counterargument

Its not a counterargument to basically anything, except as to avoid having to deal with actual evidence.

It is an argument that seems almost tailor made to have to ignore mountains of evidence against you.

In any other contexts the supposed "rationalists" would be fully in agreement that having evidence matters, and that not having any works against you.

So, in order to fight against this severe issue with their arguments, they have to invent a reason as for why the entire concept of evidence itself doesn't apply to them and they get to ignore normal evidentiary requirements.

Awfully convenient isn't it? To invent a whole class of arguments that by definition can't be falsified. You can argue for basically anything if you then tack on the excuse of "Well the world would have ended already if it came true, so by definition I won't have evidence for it"

Yes, there are many parts of those things that some people want to be automated. I and many others are able to execute on our creative vision much fasters and more effectively thanks to automation of that work.

The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place.

Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemployment prediction isn't happening yet.

You are looking at this all wrong. Give him the tools now and watch him be a better game dev today than a professional engineer from 4 years ago. He can work on his dreams as of this exact moment.

> you're saying the far-right and far-left terrorist orgs will support each other?

I am saying that far left people put out support for what are arguably far right, religious extremist groups yes.

The labels of left and right get blurred, also. The people are who are right and support russia's invasion of ukraine, for example, often use very similar rhetoric to what supposedly far left people also use.

Its very similar talking points. Very similar arguments. The only main difference is that the far right will say they think jews control the world, whereas the far left will make the same exact argument about "zionists" instead.

But often time the exact argument, word for work will be the same, with only a single word replaced. Even stuff like "ZOG", which used to be vocabulary only used by neonazis is now being used by all sorts of people.

Yeah so I said this: "it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure."

I would say that people who are sabotaging powerplants count as being called far left terrorists. And that is both dangerous and bad. It is not just a random person making tweets. Instead its people sabotaging powerplants.

It is silly to dismiss that all as just being on twitter. When power plants are sabotaged that can kill people.

As I said before, the answer is no I don't go around dress in black or wearing anarchist symbols and getting violent at riots.

I do not do that so that would make me not fall under any type of anarchist label like that one.

> so not really the line you think you're drawing.

It actually is a pretty good line. I am sure there are some edge cases, but the vast majority of designated terrorist organizations did more than enough to deserve being put on that list.

Yes, I am sure there is "Insert random one off exceptions here" or grey areas, but they would almost certainly win their court cases through the legal system, most of the time the world is pretty good at figuring out who the terrorists are.

Additionally, no, neither Good and Pretti were ever charged with terrorism. You can have your opinions on unfortunate incidents of use of force or officer training failures or about any overly zealous bad apples in our law enforcement personel, but when it comes to official designations the law is actually pretty reasonable here.

Supporting actual attacks on shipping lanes, or supporting the russian war, or attacks done by designated terrorist organizations is what I am referring to that some of the hard leftists support.

Yes, those things harm the USA, to explicitly be doing things like supporting the russian war on our allies.

Far leftists are quite open about how they think the USA is the evil empire and that Russian, China, Iran, ect are the "multipolar" world that they support.

You must be thinking of progressives who merely want free healthcare. Sure, an average bernie fan who wants some more government programs doesn't want the USA to fail. Instead, I am talking about the campists, the far lefties, or the "tankies" that they are sometimes called.

> You’re trying to say all groups committing a crime against the government are actual terrorists organizations

No, I only said that the ones that are committing terrorist attacks, or similarly serious vigilante violence or sabotaging critical infrastructure in groups are.

Mere "crimes" aren't the same as targeting a powerplant for example.

I don't go around dressed in black with anarchist symbols and wearing a mask, attacking people or destroying stores at riots in the middle of the night, no.

I generally stay away from that type of stuff and instead support non-violent, political change that happens within the system and I think those destructive groups are engaging in ineffective and bad tactics.

Like the anarchist groups that dress in all black and attack people/infra/stores in the middle of the night during riot?

Its hard to say, because political violence is a spectrum and the border is very blurry between being an organized violent rioter and someone engaging in terroristic activities. Both are bad in their own way.

But fundamentally there doesn't seem to be a huge categorical/technical difference between violent rioting and "terroristic" activism other than that terroristic attacks are simply the more serious/worse version of political violence.

EX: Once it gets to the point of targeting actual critical infrastructure, we can call that terrorism, and just getting into a fist fight at a roudy protests wouldn't be (even though both are technically political violence).

That being said, serious riots can cause a lot of damage and even kill people, but the blame is more collectively spread out towards a large group of people, as opposed to a few small groups causing the large amount of damage.

> You're missing the distinction between individual action

No I'm not. I specially said "in groups".

Yeah, the basic alliance is that anyone who wants to harm the USA nominally is ok with working together regardless of contradicting underlying ideology.

That why you'll see russia, iranian, marxist, and anarchist supporters/ideologies all using the same talking points.

No, its not random people on twitter. If you read the statements that were put it, it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure.

Are you going around planning terrorist attacks, vigilante violence, sabotaging critical infrastructure in groups or consistently materially supporting those who do? If so then yes.

If you aren't doing anything even close to this then no you wouldn't be.

> But also, there's no organization called antifa, and no antifa members

Left wing extremist groups absolutely exist. The fact that they don't go around wearing matching uniforms with the letters ANTIFA on them doesn't change that.

Your demand for an exact membership list is simply not how extremist organizations work. Terroristic groups have always been fairly amorphous.

Its not controversial to say that right wing extremists exist, some of which even commit violence, so your analogy isn't the brilliant whataboutism gotcha that you intended it to be.

So yes, just like some very far right people exist, that can justifiably be called terrorists, so to do some very far left individuals.

> Putting citizens above profits doesn't seem like a very capitalist thing to do

Do you... think that people who are pro capitalism believe that their own ideology is harmful? Obviously proponents of a belief think that their ideas and philosophy help their own citizens.

> I'm all for socialism

Thats only because you have definitionally defined socialism as "When you do things that are good", not realizing that other people think that their ideas are also good.

The reason why people support capitalism is specifically because they think it is a good idea and benefits a country, and its citizens.

> Neither capitalism as a system nor corporations have an obligation to improve quality of life for their employees beyond their market value

If by capitalism as a system, we are refering to countries that are capitalists, it seems fairly uncontroversial to say that such countries can prioritize their own citizens.

It is not weird or controversial to say that countries, even capitalist ones, prioritize their citizens in certain cases, nor is it weird to suggest that they aught do so.

> which is weird because you're arguing that capitalist companies need to prioritize "citizen" labor in order to reduce unemployment, or that governments need to force them to.

I am suggesting that it is compatible with being a capitalist country, and is not weird, unusually, or bad to do such a common thing as prioritizing your own citizens.

I wouldn't say that they need to. Merely that it is a normal and compatible, and in many cases desirable goal for said citizens.

> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

The answer is to be responsible to the business. The buck stops at the CEO. Therefore, their responsibilities are technically everything in the entire company. And I think many people who have only worked for other people underestimate how valuable that responsibility is.

> Most capitalist countries have 100% employment for their citizens and little to no immigration

You must have responded to the wrong post as it has nothing to do with my statement.

That statement is that there is nothing about capitalism that prevents a country from prioritizing its own citizens. That is a perfectly normal and rational thing to do.

Additionally, the exact percentages of unemployement rates also has little to do with capitalism, nor does the uncommonness of fully achieving a lofty but possibly valuable goal also has nothing to do with what capitalism is, nor does it say very much about how valuable that goal is or the value in attempting to aspirationally achieve it.

Nothing in capitalism prevents a country from prioritizing its own citizens.

And it is uncontroversial in most countries that a country should do this.

So this isn't a contradiction. Indeed america is capitalist. And it is also prioritizing its own citizens. There is nothing weird about that.

> You cannot ignore the contract unless you /are/ a multibillion dollar company and can run the model entirely internally. Or do you propose to run an instance of Kimi K3 on your laptop?

I think that there is a large swath of people, companies, or groups, that are in between "Multi-billion dollar company", and someone running it on their laptop.

100k of hardware, that a group might already have sitting around, could probably do it continuously.

Are you trying to imply, without making any direct argument, that this is never a useful frame of reference?

In comparison to cloud services, having access to the assembly code can still be quite useful.

This is especially true in the modern era, where you can use AI to much more easily decompile the assemble and reconstruct the source code even.

"Open-assembly" code may be more useful than you might previously have thought, given the ease of recreating the source code or making changes with AI these days.

> You don't get why people would like to be in control of a powerful new technology

You will not have that control. Even if everything were open source. This is because you don't have 100 million dollars of compute.

There, the difference for almost everyone is negligible.

> Without fully end-to-end open source models you are still at the mercy of the model provider to keep providing updates

No. Because you can post train it. And even if you could train the whole thing again, but with slight changes, once again, you aren't spending the hundred mil in compute to change it only a little bit.

Instead, you'll do post training like everyone else does.

> The Kimi K3 'weights' are an opaque blob that can only be used by contract.

No they are not. You can just ignore the contract. Unless you are a multi-billion dollar company, nobody will notice and you will get away with it.

> people are fearful that the entirety of the internet has been hoovered up

Information wants to be free. If you don't like the idea of information, ideas, ect being shared freely for anyone to use just say that. But you aren't on the side of open source.

> that maybe such a consequential tech doesn't belong in the hands of a few tech bros whose only qualification for owning it is being rich.

The solution to that is open weights, and for the technology to be in the hands of more people not less.

This point agrees with the central point that spreading out this tech as much as possible, with open weights, is the good thing here.

> A giant concentration of power

Concentration of power would be preventing open weights not supporting it.

Like WTF do you mean. Open source would be allowing anyone to use the tech easily. Obviously open source would want LLM weights to be public and easily sharable