pull down to refresh
fwiw this fued stinks of psyop, totally scripted, there's absolutely zero chance it's actually about what everyone thinks its about.
popcorn ready.
Actually this is the kinda stuff that is pretty common on The Hill. A company will try to pivot and make a statement to get better terms and more often than not the government has folded. This Admin doesn’t and has been clear it will cut you off. It’s much more damming and damaging for Anthropic than it is for the whole government.
There wouldn't be this level of spectacle unless they had a reason for wanting people to discuss it. There's another shoe or three to drop.
and here... we... gooooo
This is the exact issue that @DarrelXero does not seem to get. Anthropic thought that with a PR stunt they could get the Pentagon to agree to their terrible terms and the Pentagon called the bluff. Now that they lost all Federal Government contracts the shareholders are going to be pissed because all of the AI companies are bleeding money at absurd levels.
Plus getting cut off from Genesis would be so so so horrible for the company it alone could cause it to implode.
They're a TDS lunatic, bad faith interlocutor, and very low IQ. Second easiest mute ever on this board. #1437135
Wait until the government comes for you with AI tools, unshackled or classified ones with zero restrictions even if you're a US citizen.
That's a totally different perspective.
That adds nothing to the conversation, in any context, whatsoever.
The tools exist, period.
If they are as powerful as people believe, it doesn't matter who has them, government or non.
If the government cannot be constrained, then no virtue signaling is going to stop them.
These are just few of the many reasons this whole conversation is an obvious psyop: #1444326
I don't want to welcome a world where any government... Has unlimited ability, far beyond what exists today, to target their own citizens even if those rights being targeted are constitutionally protected.
How long would it take... For a government with zero morals or ethics to crush bitcoin? Or try to?
If its not the Republicans then its the democrats and politics doesn't make it right
Want in one hand and shit in the other, what anyone wants is irrelevant.
The only limit on the government is... government. Be that the shadow state, or other state-level rivals, power vacuums get filled. There is no limit to ability because there is no power vacuum. There is always an apex force.
Governments are a thing, they have no morals or ethics. They operate only legitimacy against the shadow state or rivals.
Legitimacy relies upon the population as a force multiplier, that's the closest we get to market dynamics in matters of state, competition for legitimacy
to crush bitcoin?
There's probably a script at the NSA that could do it in a few blocks already, fortunately they created it to replace fiats dying legitimacy.
politics
Politics are the scripted theater to communicate decisions that have already been made, narrative and optics that make the decisions appear legitimate
Governments are a thing, they have no morals or ethics. They operate only legitimacy against the shadow state or rivals.
This is not what the united states was based upon.
There's probably a script at the NSA that could do it in a few blocks already, fortunately they created it to replace fiats dying legitimacy
If they created it and by extension promote it... Then why the crackdown? Why the KYC? Or extremely complex tax compliance?
Or for that matter why the memecoins or shitcoining?
Politics are the scripted theater to communicate decisions that have already been made, narrative and optics that make the decisions appear legitimate
The US has 3 branches of government, a constitution, and is supposed to be by and for the people politics does not give the powerful the excuse to screw over the powerless.
This is not what the united states was based upon.
It's exactly what the US is based upon, that American industrialists are a more legitimate governing body than British industrialists.
Do you know who John Hancock is and what he did?
why the crackdown?
What crackdown? all the blocking and tackling to make it an ETF? The comptroller of the currency preparing banks to adopt it longer than most self-proclaimed Bitcoiners have been in it?
To make Michael Saylor, who's office HQ is practically on the CIA campus, the head of a global central bank?
Why the KYC?
KYC is for fiat, that forces globalist / deep state banks to keep records. They don't need KYC for Bitcoin, the chain is transparent.
Or extremely complex tax compliance?
Taxes track FIAT.
Or for that matter why the memecoins or shitcoining?
Even Hal Finney was for shitcoining to teach people the value of Bitcoin, a "collectible".
The government being anti-bitcoin thing is libertarian cope for people that believe in lone wolf fantasies akin to Santa Claus. It's a national security tool. #1438237
US has 3 branches of government, a constitution, and is supposed to be by and for the people
Ever heard of the The Articles of Confederation?
All these things are downstream of power and influence (legitimacy), and thus ephemeral. A shadow state or rival state picks and chooses their rules as they see fit to accomplish their goals. The stage is bigger than what's in-front of the curtain.
politics does not give the powerful the excuse to screw over the powerless
Politics are the scripted theater to communicate decisions that have already been made
Omg I’m dying laughing 😂 he is trying so hard to twist words and thought to fit the narrative he concocted when there is nothing there 😂
As someone who works on the most bipartisan committee in Congresss (Zoe Lofgren has even stated it on the record) this guy is just wildin out!
fascist regime
kicked out in a few months
Seems you don't know how fascism works
Let me guess, you believe Joe Biden was president too?
From Palmer Lucky:
Do you believe in democracy? Should our military be regulated by our elected leaders, or corporate executives? Seemingly innocuous terms from the latter like "You cannot target innocent civilians" are actually moral minefields that lever differences of cultural tradition into massive control.
Who is a civilian and not? What makes them innocent or not? What does it mean for them to be a "target" vs collateral damage? Existing policy and law has very clear answers for these questions, but unelected corporations managing profits and PR will often have a very different answer.
Imagine if a missile company tried to enforce the above policy, that their product cannot be used to target innocent civilians, that they can shut off access if elected leaders decide to break those terms. Sounds, good, right? Not really - in addition to the value judgement problems I list above, you also have to account for questions like:
-What level of information, classified and otherwise, does the corporation receive that would allow them to make these determinations? How much leverage would they have to demand more?
-What if an elected President merely threatens a dictator with using our weapons in a certain way, ala Madman Theory/MAD? Is the threat seen as empty because the dictator knows the corporate executives will cut off the military? Is the threat enough to trigger the cutoff? How might either of those determinations vary if the current corporate executive happens to like the dictator or dislike the President?
-At what level of confidence does the cutoff trigger, both in writing and in reality?
The fact that this is a debate over AI does not change the underlying calculus. The same problems apply to definitions and use of ethically fraught but important capabilities like surveillance systems or autonomous weapons. It is easy to say "But they will have cutouts to operate with autonomous systems for defensive use!", but you immediately get into the same issues and more - what is autonomous? What is defensive? What about defending an asset during an offensive action, or parking a carrier group off the coast of a nation that considers us to be offensive?
At the end of the day, you have to believe that the American experiment is still ongoing, that people have the right to elect and unelect the authorities making these decisions, that our imperfect constitutional republic is still good enough to run a country without outsourcing the real levers of power to billionaires and corpos and their shadow advisors. I still believe.
And that is why "bro just agree the AI won't be involved in autonomous weapons or mass surveillance why can't you agree it is so simple please bro" is an untenable position that the United States cannot possibly accept.