US Politics Mega-thread - Page 107

On April 12 2018 08:03 bo1b wrote:
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 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:


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 08:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Yes, yes, we know. This is literally the argument that everyone knows you're making, but again you're making it take the long way around instead of just jumping to the point everyone already knows you want to talk about.

People like Hillary got away with it, people only care about partisan politics, nothing will get fixed unless the whole thing gets burned down, etc.

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.'

Yes, that's probably true. Expensive cars are things that are wasteful as well.

On April 12 2018 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:


You present that (a reductive version imo) as if it's less sound than the amorphous argument I asked if you were making earlier. If that's the argument you want to make, make it. Don't pretend as if you've already demonstrated why yours is better.

EDIT: I know you guys like to make this about Hillary but I want to reiterate, while she had her own particulars, she is not the focus, just the most recent (and often egregious) Democratic example. Obama or Bill have and could be swapped in and be applicable in many cases. Same goes for Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, or whoever the establishment favorite turns out to be.

On April 12 2018 06:46 Plansix wrote:
We will re-litigate every previous election until FDR. And then we might discuss Cohen getting that weird 150K and not know how many more 150Ks exists out there.

On April 12 2018 08:59 m4ini wrote:


Nah. If you would've made an argument, we could've had an argument. You didn't so i'm not entirely sure what i'm supposed to do. But sure, i'll bite. "How" do you think a military will use "AI"? It's a pretty easy answer if you keep in mind that we already have programmable drones, F&F missiles etc, what they're capable of and why "AI" means something different in this regard.

Sure. Let me just briefly declassify all that stuff for you, lets not take the small stuff that we do know about as an example. Lets talk Zumwalt Class then?

On April 12 2018 09:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:

As P6 already said:


Next time if you want to have another burn down the establishment discussion, start being up front about it so people don't have to keep leading you to the obvious goalpost.

On April 12 2018 09:08 micronesia wrote:

My 'argument' was that someone called something silly but didn't explain why it was silly. I wasn't talking to you originally. I won't tell you what you are supposed to do, but what you probably shouldn't do is start an argument with someone even though you aren't disagreeing with what they originally said. Anyway, AI can be used to make decisions about when how and how people die, and I'm generally not okay with that. AI can also analyze available intel and make suggestions to human operators that current targets are higher risk (i.e., higher risk of civilian casualties) than previously thought. In those cases, the AI can do good. It all depends on the exact application.


Which is it? "It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge" or we will need to declassify it all?

Regarding the Zumwalt, what about it? The government does have a big problem with cost overruns on emerging technology for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider that the same thing as ridiculous projects that the government never should have even considered.

My 'argument' was that someone called something silly but didn't explain why it was silly. I wasn't talking to you originally. I won't tell you what you are supposed to do, but what you probably shouldn't do is start an argument with someone even though you aren't disagreeing with what they originally said. Anyway, AI can be used to make decisions about when how and how people die, and I'm generally not okay with that. AI can also analyze available intel and make suggestions to human operators that current targets are higher risk (i.e., higher risk of civilian casualties) than previously thought. In those cases, the AI can do good. It all depends on the exact application.

Which is it? "It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge" or we will need to declassify it all?

Regarding the Zumwalt, what about it? The government does have a big problem with cost overruns on emerging technology for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider that the same thing as ridiculous projects that the government never should have even considered.

On April 12 2018 09:17 Plansix wrote:
The tweet and the discussion was not random at all. But to discuss them we must rehash the same tired discussion we have had 200 times. But this is what happens when it is “but Hiliary/Democrats” time. We have accepted it, even if it is really boring.

On April 12 2018 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm going to ask you a very simple question if you insist on posting like this.

What discussion? Obviously not the one about my post, there was some other discussion that keeps getting referenced that I was interrupting. What discussion?

On April 12 2018 09:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I mean, it's not my fault I posted after you. Because the issue of Cohen's involvement, and surrounding matters of his financing and position as a "fixer", is all quite interesting. Which I did supply the context for, to you.

But despite insistence that your line of questioning was not a "whataboutism", "burn it all down", etc. rant, it really just was. So fine, lesson learned. Again.

Mr. Pinchuk is the son-in-law of a former president of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, who from 1994 to 2005 led a government criticized for corruption, nepotism and the murder of dissident journalists. Mr. Pinchuk, who has been accused by steel makers in the United States of illegally dumping steel on the American market at artificially low prices, drew more scrutiny during the campaign for his ties to Hillary Clinton and her family foundation. He has donated more than $13 million to that organization since 2006.

On April 12 2018 09:34 m4ini wrote:


First: your example of what an AI could do is actually a simulation, not an AI. We already have that, and already do that.
If you're talking "on the fly while a pilot is controlling the drone to the target", it doesn't matter. Once a target is marked, it gets shot. You don't call back an attack because there's a civilian there. AI won't change military doctrines.

The first part was the correct one: it'll make decisions of some sort. The only two things not computerised in military today are decisions, and pulling the trigger. These two options you have for AI.

Second: history, and i mean, every single military advancement of any sort, has shown that it always, always will be used in the "worst" way possible. It's silly to assume AI would be any different.

I linked you 5 examples that took me 20 seconds of googling. You told me "not good enough", i did my part: look yourself. There's plenty declassified stupid stuff already out there, and that's only the declassified stuff. It's again silly to assume that for some reason magically all spending into stupid things military stopped and is now spent on relevant things.

And the Zumwalt is exactly that. It's a ridiculous project that the government should've never even considered and now that it's built, exactly that becomes clear.

Not only is it unreliable (panama canal)

it doesn't actually have a purpose at all. It's worse for air defense as the predecessor. The stealth actually doesn't really work. The guns were replaced, so the original purpose it was built for, can't be accomplished anymore. It just isn't an advancement in any way over the old Burke class ships. In fact, the old Burke class ships are now being constructed again, not the Zumwalt Class. The Zumwalt is dead. If ordering three ships without purpose for $23b isn't a "ridiculous project", then i don't really know what is.

Keep in mind, that ship was built/designed around a weapon system that didn't exist. And it still doesn't.

On April 12 2018 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


Okay, it's time to put the silly "whataboutism" argument to bed.

Per the article referenced in the tweet:



www.nytimes.com

This whole ridiculous "whataboutism" argument is dependent on the premise that a fact from the article mentioned in the tweet isn't relevant.

This entire exercise has been an excellent demonstration of a lot of what's wrong with the discourse.

MOD NOTE: + Show Spoiler +

On April 12 2018 10:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:

It has nothing to do the article, and entirely about what you want to discuss.

The fact that you read the article, but latched onto two paragraphs that mentioned the Clintons, and proceeded to make everyone else point out the context that you apparently read but decided to ignore, and even when that context is brought up still try to point the discussion back to other people doing it too, is "whataboutism".

So, again, please. If you want to force the discussion into another anti-establishment rant, just do it from the start so I can avoid it from the start.

On April 12 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


I mean whatever influence $150k buys one has to presume ~100x that buys substantially more. So of course they are both bad, but only one seemed to raise any concern among liberals.

Pompeo asks Clinton for advice as he preps for confirmation battle
The secretary of state nominee, who trashed his Democratic predecessor over Benghazi, isn’t taking any Senate votes for granted.

As a sharply partisan Republican member of Congress, CIA Director Mike Pompeo tormented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her response to the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, which Pompeo called “morally reprehensible.” He also once liked a tweet that branded her successor, John Kerry, a “traitor.”

But now that Pompeo faces a tough confirmation process to become secretary of state himself, he has reached out to Clinton and Kerry, as well as every other living occupant of the office, to ask for guidance. Clinton, for one, has been willing to help.

“These were lengthy calls seeking advice” from the former secretaries, a person familiar with Pompeo’s prep work told POLITICO. “He understands the gravity of the challenge before him.”

While juggling his day job at the CIA, the person said, Pompeo has been participating in briefing sessions at the State Department, reading thick stacks of material, much of it country-specific, and participating in mock Q&As to prepare for a sure-fire grilling before U.S. senators. He’s also talking to a range of people at the State Department, including career civil and foreign service staffers who felt sidelined under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

It’s part of Pompeo’s mixture of crash course and charm offensive as he prepares for a Thursday confirmation hearing before a closely divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although no one thinks Pompeo has had a political conversion, he seems determined to gain some Democratic votes — and demonstrate more respect for his predecessors and future employees than did Tillerson, who never spoke at length to either Kerry or Clinton and who alienated his department’s rank and file.

Former U.S. officials say that — in both his confirmation hearing and in the job, if he is confirmed — Pompeo will have to find a way to get along with both Donald Trump and a diplomatic crew that the Republican president disdains.

“Pompeo’s most challenging task is to keep the trust of the president while also earning the trust of the State Department bureaucracy,” said Ilan Goldenberg, who served at State in the Obama administration. “If he is too hard-line and ideological, he will not earn the trust of the diplomats and won’t be an effective negotiator and spokesman on the international stage. But he also has to avoid the perception that he has been co-opted by the ‘softies’ at Foggy Bottom or he’ll lose influence in the West Wing.”

Pompeo has managed to stay in Trump’s good graces for more than a year — something a shrinking number of other presidential aides can say. And by all accounts, he also is eager to serve as secretary of state, despite the largely painful experience of Tillerson, who clashed with the president and never earned his department’s trust.

Pompeo, a former Army officer who graduated first in his class at West Point and has a degree from Harvard Law School, actually began quiet preparations for the job well before Trump fired Tillerson in mid-March — seeking advice about the position while sizing up potential deputies.

During their talk, Clinton advised Pompeo to stem the flight of career diplomats who quit under Tillerson, according to a person familiar with the call.

But standing between Pompeo and Foggy Bottom are dozens of hostile Democratic senators, and at least one Republican — raising questions about his ability to win majority approval from the Foreign Relations Committee, which is divided 11-10 in favor of Republicans.

On April 12 2018 11:40 KwarK wrote:

Are we going to rehash the secret Clinton sex apartment dungeon above the Presidential Library again or are you willing to concede that there is a difference between paying Hillary $15m and donating $15m to the Clinton Foundation?

On April 12 2018 11:45 Introvert wrote:
Maybe this isn't super interesting but I though it was. Hopefully Pompeo, who is getting pounded in some media corners, really is serious about his new job. And of course there is the tidbit that he called Clinton at all. And she took it. And it shows that really no one liked Tillerson, lol.



Second half at Politico