pear01

7 ms·

1.
The Nation-State Is a Legacy System. Time for an Upgrade(gccsproject.pages.dev)
1 points by pear01 4mo ago|1 comments
2.
by pear01 4mo ago
You're not correcting anything. Nothing in my comment suggested I don't know what qualified immunity is or I don't understand the difference between criminal and civil liability. Quite the contrary if you are capable of readi
3.
by pear01 4mo ago
This was clarifying? It reads like a sleepy undergrad's first attempt, complete with the constant meandering to satisfy some word count. The irony is a SOTA AI could make this person's case far more succinctly and convincingly. Yo
4.
by pear01 4mo ago
Are you aware that the current US president won the popular vote? What redistricting and voter suppression came into play in that case? I'm supposed to conclude from this election that the electorate didn't support the current pre
5.
by pear01 4mo ago
Wow yes excellent point, because of course a police officer facing the threat of legal action would never attempt such a low bar lie. Oops my boss told me to. Oops I didn't know. Case dismissed. Excellent standards for people authorize
6.
by pear01 4mo ago
You are missing the point. The point is you can still sue the McDonalds. With the police there is a human intuition to also want to sue the officer, given the officer is a human being who has free will and thus made a choice to violate your
7.
by pear01 4mo ago
Police officers are human. In the United States in the vast majority of cases you can't sue the police, only the community responsible for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity Assuming you can st
8.
by pear01 4mo ago
If your point is to suggest no alternatives have ever been contemplated then that is simply factually untrue and I think you know that. In some cases, such people succeed locally/statewide even if failing nationally. My point is simply
9.
by pear01 4mo ago
The Iran war is unpopular because of prices at the pump. Prior interventions in Iran (and elsewhere) that also violated rights did not garner the same reaction because to the average American they incurred no cost. If for some reason the wa
10.
by pear01 4mo ago
Very few? Try none. Unless the moral position is something akin to realist self interest, in which case the apparent "inconsistency" is actually internally quite consistent. Perhaps the lack of consistent moral positions in compet
11.
by pear01 4mo ago
But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent? But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent? But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent?
12.
by pear01 4mo ago
I appreciate your optimism actually. Someone (it's me) can also share your ideal for social media while also having slightly different takes on what makes the prevailing model wrong exactly. Thanks for the back and forth.
13.
by pear01 4mo ago
Indeed. Qualified immunity is a stain on American jurisprudence. You can almost never hold anyone in government accountable. You are forced to sue your own community to get some shred of justice while the actual people who violated your rig
14.
by pear01 4mo ago
Fair enough, I appreciate the response. Just note in this case I think the precedent should not be private company can ignore public demand. If they can unilaterally ignore the demands of the Saudi government then why not any liberal govern
15.
by pear01 4mo ago
The problem with this summation is the government is complicit in their actions. Thus it undermines this simple private gain, public pain argument. A lot of the times when Meta does something like this the fact the governments in question e
16.
by pear01 4mo ago
Whatever he had in mind there is surely a warning in how rapidly his efforts were reversed once he passed from the scene. This is not merely a matter of "favorites" or "imitation" but one of legitimacy. Rome was not buil
17.
&Mario – Digital Union for the People(andmario.com)
3 points by pear01 4mo ago|0 comments
18.
by pear01 4mo ago
By virtue of its position, the state often does things it forbids all other actors under its jurisdiction from doing. Thus your comment has much less force than it would seem, even if the apparent contradiction you pointed out is somewhat a
19.
by pear01 4mo ago
That may all be true. However it seems odd to not follow your ending paragraph with more circumspection re the earlier ones. If we stipulate that the USA is ending a trend of relative reliability and stability and as such constitutes more o
20.
by pear01 4mo ago
The term/design is not his but he offered an interpretation or extrapolation inspired by the concept that was unique enough that if you mention panopticon in the context of Foucault it means something unique. More information: https:&
21.
by pear01 4mo ago
It is good to diversify but people should really not make Europe out to be some sanctuary. European governments (and thus companies) are still going to cooperate with America. When the day comes when they do not, America's reach will s
22.
by pear01 4mo ago
Just to volunteer an example: An editorial by Assange that explicitly called out the panopticon was on my mind today. The rise of "meta glasses" and reading ICE also wishes to employ them was what reminded me of this I believe. So
23.
by pear01 4mo ago
Except a cursory glance at their comment history shows otherwise. You could have put in some basic effort. Also don't insult our intelligence. It's pretty clear what side of the partisan line someone who says both - "I'm
24.
by pear01 4mo ago
Just remember you don't need AGI to see massive societal change. Certainly not mass layoffs. AGI is not the bar. By the time we all agree AGI has come the world will have already changed. You just need AI to be just good enough to win
25.
by pear01 4mo ago
No one said it's going to zero. It doesn't have to go to zero for lives to change. Would you rather be a cowboy or a factory farmer? The latter are some of the least desirable jobs in the entire world. The fact that millions of pe
26.
by pear01 4mo ago
No one said unlimited progress. Let's not revert to straw man claims. If you think the potential of LLMs is overblown feel free to short the market. I don't pretend to know the future. But if I may, I don't think you are fram
27.
by pear01 4mo ago
Ranchers, butchers... and factory farms. Most meat Americans consume have had very little interaction with a person until they are being devoured on the plate. I appreciate your points. I agree with you that not all "technically specia
28.
by pear01 4mo ago
There may be gains to be had in such emergence but that is not where I see the gains in the next five years. Those gains will be made by connecting LLMs more robustly with formal reasoning, which computers are already very good at. Continue
29.
by pear01 4mo ago
We live in a world with nuclear weapons. Somehow we all cope and get up every morning. I think you are missing the point - the world is already grim. It always has been. What about human affairs say in the last century alone makes you think
30.
by pear01 4mo ago
To be clear by that and "cultural corpus" I meant their skill with natural languages. It is well known for instance that early LLMs were curiously better at composing sentences in English than doing basic math. Regarding such form

More ›