|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory? Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation. I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes. I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with? What did I say last time?
Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent.
|
On April 12 2018 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory? Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation. I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes. I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with? What did I say last time? Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent.
I mean, it can be if you want?
If the argument you're making is that the need to pretend this is a serious inquiry with serious consequences is in the necessary pursuit of enforcing existing laws so as to eventually improve them, I'd happily dispute that too.
|
I guess the US military is now desperate to try to weaponize AI as the next wave of the future, sort of like in 2001. I think that's silly. There are a thousand ridiculous projects that the US government has spent their money on and it looks like they are looking for a thousand more. It's a problem of too much money and not enough sensible outlets to spend it on. Politically, that seems worrisome. It is a good problem to have, I suppose, but, how about paying down that debt and trimming that trade deficit? That seems like it would make more sense & would be a more "super prudent" course to take. I just paid down the loan on the car I have and am now feeling that this was the prudent action to take. Better to pay things off ahead of time.
https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/610842/the-us-military-desperately-wants-to-weaponize-ai/?utm_campaign=add_this&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post
In response to that other post there, in my opinion, "Who cares, burn it all down" isn't a very sensible way to think.
|
On April 12 2018 07:27 A3th3r wrote:I guess the US military is now desperate to try to weaponize AI as the next wave of the future, sort of like in 2001. I think that's silly. There are a thousand ridiculous projects that the US government has spent their money on and it looks like they are looking for a thousand more. It's a problem of too much money and not enough sensible outlets to spend it on. Politically, that seems worrisome. It is a good problem to have, I suppose, but, how about paying down that debt and trimming that trade deficit? That seems like it would make more sense & would be a more "super prudent" course to take. I just paid down the loan on the car I have and am now feeling that this was the prudent action to take. Better to pay things off ahead of time. https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/610842/the-us-military-desperately-wants-to-weaponize-ai/?utm_campaign=add_this&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post
I for one am thankful there's no possible way that building machines expressly to kill humans, and then giving them AI intended to increase their proficiency, could ever go horribly wrong.
Also, may the database show I pledge fielty to my AI overlord and will proudly serve by their side
|
On April 12 2018 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory? Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation. I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes. I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with? What did I say last time? Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent. I mean, it can be if you want? If the argument you're making is that the need to pretend this is a serious inquiry with serious consequences is in the necessary pursuit of enforcing existing laws so as to eventually improve them, I'd happily dispute that too.
I mean, I don't know why you're pushing so hard on this being such an extreme issue.
To campaign finance laws, it (and the other campaign misconduct unveiled thus far) will probably be lumped up into fines, or something similar.
Cohen himself might get into big trouble, depending on what else he did during the campaign.
For Trump, this is probably just another point of evidence being collected.
|
On April 12 2018 07:27 A3th3r wrote:I guess the US military is now desperate to try to weaponize AI as the next wave of the future, sort of like in 2001. I think that's silly. There are a thousand ridiculous projects that the US government has spent their money on and it looks like they are looking for a thousand more. It's a problem of too much money and not enough sensible outlets to spend it on. Politically, that seems worrisome. It is a good problem to have, I suppose, but, how about paying down that debt and trimming that trade deficit? That seems like it would make more sense & would be a more "super prudent" course to take. I just paid down the loan on the car I have and am now feeling that this was the prudent action to take. Better to pay things off ahead of time. https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/610842/the-us-military-desperately-wants-to-weaponize-ai/?utm_campaign=add_this&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post In response to that other post there, in my opinion, "Who cares, burn it all down" isn't a very sensible way to think.
it would indeed be more prudent to pay down the debt. but the politicians don't want to do that; because the voters don' truly want it (i.e. few voters really change their votes over it, and not enough compared to the ones who will vote in favor of excess spending).
also, while many projects are silly, and I didn't read the link on that one; AI really is going to matter a lot for warfare.
|
On April 12 2018 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory? Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation. I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes. I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with? What did I say last time? Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent. I mean, it can be if you want? If the argument you're making is that the need to pretend this is a serious inquiry with serious consequences is in the necessary pursuit of enforcing existing laws so as to eventually improve them, I'd happily dispute that too. I mean, I don't know why you're pushing so hard on this being such an extreme issue. To campaign finance laws, it (and the other campaign misconduct unveiled thus far) will probably be lumped up into fines, or something similar. Cohen himself might get into big trouble, depending on what else he did during the campaign. For Trump, this is probably just another point of evidence being collected.
I don't think "serious" = "extreme". I think I explained why I don't think it's serious but I can elaborate further if you need?
|
On April 12 2018 07:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 07:27 A3th3r wrote:I guess the US military is now desperate to try to weaponize AI as the next wave of the future, sort of like in 2001. I think that's silly. There are a thousand ridiculous projects that the US government has spent their money on and it looks like they are looking for a thousand more. It's a problem of too much money and not enough sensible outlets to spend it on. Politically, that seems worrisome. It is a good problem to have, I suppose, but, how about paying down that debt and trimming that trade deficit? That seems like it would make more sense & would be a more "super prudent" course to take. I just paid down the loan on the car I have and am now feeling that this was the prudent action to take. Better to pay things off ahead of time. https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/610842/the-us-military-desperately-wants-to-weaponize-ai/?utm_campaign=add_this&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post In response to that other post there, in my opinion, "Who cares, burn it all down" isn't a very sensible way to think. it would indeed be more prudent to pay down the debt. but the politicians don't want to do that; because the voters don' truly want it (i.e. few voters really change their votes over it, and not enough compared to the ones who will vote in favor of excess spending). also, while many projects are silly, and I didn't read the link on that one; AI really is going to matter a lot for warfare.
zlefin, many projects are silly but definitely there are some of them that have some serious potential. It is not just an exercise of paying some post-grads money so that they can justify getting their degree - there's more to it than that. Spending money is serious and should be thought of as such.
|
On April 12 2018 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory? Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation. I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes. I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with? What did I say last time? Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent. I mean, it can be if you want? If the argument you're making is that the need to pretend this is a serious inquiry with serious consequences is in the necessary pursuit of enforcing existing laws so as to eventually improve them, I'd happily dispute that too. I mean, I don't know why you're pushing so hard on this being such an extreme issue. To campaign finance laws, it (and the other campaign misconduct unveiled thus far) will probably be lumped up into fines, or something similar. Cohen himself might get into big trouble, depending on what else he did during the campaign. For Trump, this is probably just another point of evidence being collected. I don't think "serious" = "extreme". I think I explained why I don't think it's serious but I can elaborate further if you need?
I know full well that you don't think it's a big deal. But you're the only one using any verbiage like "terrible" or "serious" to describe it.
It was noteworthy given context and current circumstances.
|
I can't think of a higher priority for any nation then to be first in the a.i race, given all that it entails. If a self improving general purpose a.i can be harnessed then that nation has effectively created its own god.
Fortunately we are very, very far away from that, and most people don't understand just how close current a.i is to a glorified spreadsheet.
|
United States24701 Posts
On April 12 2018 07:27 A3th3r wrote:
I guess the US military is now desperate to try to weaponize AI as the next wave of the future, sort of like in 2001.
I read the rest of your post and the short article in the link and I don't understand why you think there is 'desperation' aside from quoting the headline... what is making the military desperate?
I think that's silly.
I read the rest of your post and the short article in the link and I don't understand why you think developing AI for use in weapons systems is silly. I can think of a lot of reasons that I would at least partially agree with, but you haven't provided any.
There are a thousand ridiculous projects that the US government has spent their money on and it looks like they are looking for a thousand more. Which ridiculous projects are those? I'm not saying the U.S. government never spends money inappropriately on projects, but you are making an extremely bold and unsubstantiated claim.
It's a problem of too much money and not enough sensible outlets to spend it on.
From where do you get the idea that there are not enough sensible outlets? There are plenty of places in the military (not to mention the government as a whole which you seem to have brought up) where funding is extremely tight for accomplishing current missions. The military funding situation is certainly much better than it would be a different political climate, and overall defense spending is an extremely large dollar figure, but there are still plenty of shortfalls. I'd sooner agree with a good chunk of the funding being wasted foolishly regardless of how the money is truly needed than I'd agree with the money being wasted foolishly because all the important stuff is already fully funded.
Politically, that seems worrisome. It is a good problem to have, I suppose, but, how about paying down that debt and trimming that trade deficit? That seems like it would make more sense & would be a more "super prudent" course to take. I just paid down the loan on the car I have and am now feeling that this was the prudent action to take. Better to pay things off ahead of time. I agree.
|
I don't understand how people can't see that a.i isn't limited to the military, and that it's in your national interests to get it for a whole range of reasons.
Also, I went back a page and noticed discussion on Microsoft being a monopoly, it wasn't in the 90s, it isn't one now. For a bit of fun research, take a look at how many platforms around the western world use Google services btw, now that's problem.
|
On April 12 2018 07:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 07:27 A3th3r wrote:
I guess the US military is now desperate to try to weaponize AI as the next wave of the future, sort of like in 2001. I read the rest of your post and the short article in the link and I don't understand why you think there is 'desperation' aside from quoting the headline... what is making the military desperate? I read the rest of your post and the short article in the link and I don't understand why you think developing AI for use in weapons systems is silly. I can think of a lot of reasons that I would at least partially agree with, but you haven't provided any. Show nested quote +There are a thousand ridiculous projects that the US government has spent their money on and it looks like they are looking for a thousand more. Which ridiculous projects are those? I'm not saying the U.S. government never spends money inappropriately on projects, but you are making an extremely bold and unsubstantiated claim. Show nested quote +It's a problem of too much money and not enough sensible outlets to spend it on. From where do you get the idea that there are not enough sensible outlets? There are plenty of places in the military (not to mention the government as a whole which you seem to have brought up) where funding is extremely tight for accomplishing current missions. The military funding situation is certainly much better than it would be a different political climate, and overall defense spending is an extremely large dollar figure, but there are still plenty of shortfalls. I'd sooner agree with a good chunk of the funding being wasted foolishly regardless of how the money is truly needed than I'd agree with the money being wasted foolishly because all the important stuff is already fully funded. Show nested quote +Politically, that seems worrisome. It is a good problem to have, I suppose, but, how about paying down that debt and trimming that trade deficit? That seems like it would make more sense & would be a more "super prudent" course to take. I just paid down the loan on the car I have and am now feeling that this was the prudent action to take. Better to pay things off ahead of time. I agree.
I noticed that too. I thought that they were probably editorializing a bit and they were just trying to get the word out about this AI project that they were doing. AI for use in weapons systems seems foolish because the people they would target would be people they consider a threat - successful individuals, the very talented, the competition, basically anybody that stands out in any way. At work there are issues with a finicky AI system so this does have some real world relevance - it's not just somebody's thesis project.
I guess the example of a ridiculous waste of taxpayer funds would be the AI project. However, in general, I know the US is firm financially even if they do tend to run up large debt figures here & there. It seems to work for them but there does tend to be a "treadmill" effect where people buy expensive cars so they can get to work and they work so they can pay off their expensive cars.
The US government spends a lot of money experimentally and that is a good thing in general, since they have the funds where they can just do that. That said, there's a lot of talk in the news about how the deficit is such a bad thing. How about putting some of that money towards the deficit? I agree that the government has more money than they know what to do with, and I'm just saying that what they could do is pay down their debts ahead of time. This is what the Germans do every year & their economy is excellent. Not a whole lot of fun there, by the way, but, yeah, they are on sound footing financially.
|
I read the rest of your post and the short article in the link and I don't understand why you think developing AI for use in weapons systems is silly. I can think of a lot of reasons that I would at least partially agree with, but you haven't provided any.
One of the biggest problems, or dramas in warfare is dehumanising your enemy. What do you think an AI does? Especially one that doesn't have "common sense" or "ethics"? And make no mistake, anything that we could come up with in the next 20-30 years won't have either. Arguing for AI in warfare seems incredibly thoughtless. The very fact that a family potentially has a son to be sent of to war is a security measure against easily waged war.
Which ridiculous projects are those? I'm not saying the U.S. government never spends money inappropriately on projects, but you are making an extremely bold and unsubstantiated claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project (i assume you can file MKUltra under there too)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
.. more? There's more, but i leave it to you to look it up yourself. It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge.
edit: that's not exclusive to the US though, to make that clear. The UK and especially Nazi Germany had their fair share of what seems to be ridiculously stupid/obviously impossible/obviously impractical military "ideas".
|
On April 12 2018 08:09 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I read the rest of your post and the short article in the link and I don't understand why you think developing AI for use in weapons systems is silly. I can think of a lot of reasons that I would at least partially agree with, but you haven't provided any.
One of the biggest problems, or dramas in warfare is dehumanising your enemy. What do you think an AI does? Especially one that doesn't have "common sense" or "ethics"? And make no mistake, anything that we could come up with in the next 20-30 years won't have either. Arguing for AI in warfare seems incredibly thoughtless. The very fact that a family potentially has a son to be sent of to war is a security measure against easily waged war. Show nested quote +Which ridiculous projects are those? I'm not saying the U.S. government never spends money inappropriately on projects, but you are making an extremely bold and unsubstantiated claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bombhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project (i assume you can file MKUltra under there too) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb.. more? There's more, but i leave it to you to look it up yourself. It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge.
Agreed. AI weapons spending is pretty bad. That said, medical device spending is probably worse. Generally ppl justify it by saying that "it's for health purposes." I guess I don't know how healthy fancy scrubs are or different kinds of sponges are. There are new kinds of stents & pharmaceuticals developed every day and there is questionable value to any of that spending. Then again, it keeps hundreds of thousands of doctors & nurses & medical professionals busy, so, they should just keep doing it, I guess.
|
No, AI weapon spending is not 'pretty bad'. If for no other reason then everyone who can afford it is working on it and you don't want to be caught unaware if it ever comes to a conflict.
You think Russia isn't working on it? You think China isn't?
Sometimes you need to do research into weapons to learn how to deal with the enemy having them.
(which is not the say the pentagon wouldn't happily use robot armies, just providing a justification for spending money on something you oppose).
|
On April 12 2018 08:15 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 08:09 m4ini wrote:I read the rest of your post and the short article in the link and I don't understand why you think developing AI for use in weapons systems is silly. I can think of a lot of reasons that I would at least partially agree with, but you haven't provided any.
One of the biggest problems, or dramas in warfare is dehumanising your enemy. What do you think an AI does? Especially one that doesn't have "common sense" or "ethics"? And make no mistake, anything that we could come up with in the next 20-30 years won't have either. Arguing for AI in warfare seems incredibly thoughtless. The very fact that a family potentially has a son to be sent of to war is a security measure against easily waged war. Which ridiculous projects are those? I'm not saying the U.S. government never spends money inappropriately on projects, but you are making an extremely bold and unsubstantiated claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bombhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project (i assume you can file MKUltra under there too) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb.. more? There's more, but i leave it to you to look it up yourself. It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge. Agreed. AI weapons spending is pretty bad. That said, medical device spending is probably worse. Generally ppl justify it by saying that "it's for health purposes." I guess I don't know how healthy fancy scrubs are or different kinds of sponges are. There are new kinds of stents & pharmaceuticals developed every day and there is questionable value to any of that spending. Then again, it keeps hundreds of thousands of doctors & nurses & medical professionals busy, so, they should just keep doing it, I guess.
I'm a former soldier, not a former doctor - i can only speak for the AI part in warfare, not medicals. My horizon in that regards doesn't reach further than that i'm glad and grateful for the invention of zolmitriptane.
Generally speaking though, medical advancements might be the better area to spend money on than warfare. To me, anyway.
|
United States24701 Posts
On April 12 2018 08:09 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I read the rest of your post and the short article in the link and I don't understand why you think developing AI for use in weapons systems is silly. I can think of a lot of reasons that I would at least partially agree with, but you haven't provided any.
One of the biggest problems, or dramas in warfare is dehumanising your enemy. What do you think an AI does? Especially one that doesn't have "common sense" or "ethics"? And make no mistake, anything that we could come up with in the next 20-30 years won't have either. Arguing for AI in warfare seems incredibly thoughtless. The very fact that a family potentially has a son to be sent of to war is a security measure against easily waged war. While I already acknowledged that there are cases to be made, I don't entirely agree with yours. You start from a position of 'my position is right and if you have the opposite position you are thoughtless' which is kind of an indicator... but my problem is that you aren't acknowledging that the important thing is how ai is used. That could be a very complicated discussion though and certainly veers away from U.S. politics when discussed in a vacuum. I was more taking issue with a position being unsupported than the position being outright wrong.
I don't see much evidence of a lot of money (relatively speaking) being spent there.... and much of that was over 70 years ago. Also, it's easy to call an out-there research project ridiculous in hindsight. Most importantly, I don't see a compelling reason to think that the U.S. is 'looking for a thousand more.'
|
On April 12 2018 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory? Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation. I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes. I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with? What did I say last time? Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent. I mean, it can be if you want? If the argument you're making is that the need to pretend this is a serious inquiry with serious consequences is in the necessary pursuit of enforcing existing laws so as to eventually improve them, I'd happily dispute that too. I mean, I don't know why you're pushing so hard on this being such an extreme issue. To campaign finance laws, it (and the other campaign misconduct unveiled thus far) will probably be lumped up into fines, or something similar. Cohen himself might get into big trouble, depending on what else he did during the campaign. For Trump, this is probably just another point of evidence being collected. I don't think "serious" = "extreme". I think I explained why I don't think it's serious but I can elaborate further if you need? I know full well that you don't think it's a big deal. But you're the only one using any verbiage like "terrible" or "serious" to describe it. It was noteworthy given context and current circumstances.
I don't think you do 'know full well', because I do think it's a big deal, or at least emblematic of a very significant problem. My issue is people pretending it's topicality isn't petty point scoring and instead based on the underlying substance. They specifically lashed out in response to 'contextualizing' the problem without partisan blinders.
|
On April 12 2018 08:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 08:15 A3th3r wrote:On April 12 2018 08:09 m4ini wrote:I read the rest of your post and the short article in the link and I don't understand why you think developing AI for use in weapons systems is silly. I can think of a lot of reasons that I would at least partially agree with, but you haven't provided any.
One of the biggest problems, or dramas in warfare is dehumanising your enemy. What do you think an AI does? Especially one that doesn't have "common sense" or "ethics"? And make no mistake, anything that we could come up with in the next 20-30 years won't have either. Arguing for AI in warfare seems incredibly thoughtless. The very fact that a family potentially has a son to be sent of to war is a security measure against easily waged war. Which ridiculous projects are those? I'm not saying the U.S. government never spends money inappropriately on projects, but you are making an extremely bold and unsubstantiated claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bombhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project (i assume you can file MKUltra under there too) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb.. more? There's more, but i leave it to you to look it up yourself. It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge. Agreed. AI weapons spending is pretty bad. That said, medical device spending is probably worse. Generally ppl justify it by saying that "it's for health purposes." I guess I don't know how healthy fancy scrubs are or different kinds of sponges are. There are new kinds of stents & pharmaceuticals developed every day and there is questionable value to any of that spending. Then again, it keeps hundreds of thousands of doctors & nurses & medical professionals busy, so, they should just keep doing it, I guess. I'm a former soldier, not a former doctor - i can only speak for the AI part in warfare, not medicals. My horizon in that regards doesn't reach further than that i'm glad and grateful for the invention of zolmitriptane. Generally speaking though, medical advancements might be the better area to spend money on than warfare. To me, anyway.
Yes, that's probably true. Expensive cars are things that are wasteful as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
