Well the issue is private corporations selling data willingly is not bound by the fourth amendment. So just assume whatever any US corporation knows about you is also known by the US government because they will sell your data for a penny.
Attacking agents of a democratically elected government makes you the bad guy.
If you want to change things then vote to change it, don't attack the people doing the work that just makes things worse. These "protests" are on the same level as the people threatening and blocking abortion centers, don't do that it just makes you a menace even if you believe it is a good cause.
Yep, gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, polling station disabling, polling station hours changing, polling station location changing, advertising lies about where and when to vote, disenfranchising mail in voting, attempting to invalidate entire elections.
A state with 48% Republican has no republican representation in the house? Can’t wait to hear your leftist nonsense circumlocution around this one lolol
Now, considering their redistricting happened in 2010 and 2022, perhaps their voters simply felt it appropriate to change. But what could’ve occurred in 2016 to convince people that Republicans suck? Maybe electing a guy that wants to figuratively fuck working class Americans and literally fuck his own daughter left a bad taste in their mouth.
Wow you sound like an angry child when you get proven wrong. When presented with evidence, you gave the typical leftist cult “NAZI! FACIST! PEDO!” answer, just as I thought.
I wish we could put Trump in for a third term, just to watch more leftist rage.
They're right. Of the listed grievances, only gerrymandering is a bipartisan issue, and even then only Conservatives have fought to preserve and expand its use.
Most of those are states with low seat counts. But to quote me from a sentence above, "gerrymandering is bipartisan".
Rucho v Common Cause, a case brought against both Dems and GOP that would have rightfully declared partisan gerrymandering an unconstitutional deprivation of voting rights, was shot down by a Conservative court. Democrats campaign on ending gerrymandering, Republicans do not. Trump demanded the recent escalation in gerrymandering by explicitly calling for political re-drawings to give Republicans more seats, and Republican governors complied. The calls to de-escalate and ban the practice federally have (almost) entirely come from Democrats.
No, just that the impact of the left vs the right doing this is not the same, the left has never tried a coup, the left doesn't say they wont honor the results of elections, the left didn't destroy the supreme court's credibility. The list goes on, but sure, let's do some whataboutism.
Deporting everyone who isn't in the country legally is their mission, executing people is not.
You can argue about how they should go about deporting people, but them deporting everyone even those without a criminal record is their intended purpose.
Only if they have a deportation order. There are scenarios where people are in an in between state or have the ability to challenge a deportation order
I outright think deporting every person here undocumented now is not ethical, or beneficial to society, given the history of immigration and enforcement in this country.
>Many of the discussions above are based on a central fact: Undocumented immigrants are here, now, in large numbers. In a world where America had zero undocumented residents, arguments could be made to be less tolerant of their presence, to discourage them from being here. It wouldn't be patently inhumane to deport someone if they have been here weeks, rather than years or decades.
A serious, ethical attempt to reduce illegal immigration would be to set a path to legal, documented residence for all current non-felon aliens, and begin "undocumented" enforcement with a clean slate.
---
edit to reply to Izikiel43 since my participation in the thread has been throttled:
Is it incomprehensible that we could have a compromise solution not involving deportation of tens of millions of people, while at the same time implementing employment validation and other checks that begin actually doing immigration enforcement before families settle?
You assume that a path to legal citizenship for long-time residents here would 100% mean the situation would repeat itself, and I disagree.
I agree, but that is not for ICE to decide. Democrats should have fixed this a long time ago, USA isn't a one party state so if Democrats wanted to fix this they could have. But they too didn't want undocumented immigrants to gain full rights, it is very useful to have abusable second class citizens around for the upper classes.
So the problem here isn't ICE, it is Trump and his politics. ICE following the law and doing their job is the wrong target.
Of the half-dozen or so attempts at immigration reform in the past 25 years, every one of them has been blocked by Republicans.
IMO, Republicans like the status quo because the business class enjoys exploiting workers they can threaten with deportation, and they enjoy it as a rallying cry for their voting base.
It is extremely important to distinguish between people who are here illegally and people who are subject to a deportation order. ICE's mission is to deport people with deportation orders, and get people suspected of breaking the law in front of a court. The way you've worded it makes it sound like their mission is to go straight from "here illegally" to "deport" which it very much is not.
It’s also the federal government’s job to go around arresting everybody carrying or smoking weed, as it is still illegal no matter what any state says and every single person consuming it is a lawbreaker.
Every time the police gets to choose whether to apply a law or not you add more power to the police, I don't want the police to be more powerful.
Anyone who don't say yes just wants a police state, the reason your American police is so dangerous and powerful is because they have these choices and can arrest you for a lot of things that people don't normally get arrested for.
So yes, they should do that. That you think they shouldn't is exactly why the American police is so horrible.
You're mixing up cause and effect. The police in America aren't more dangerous and powerful because they have choices, they have choices because they are dangerous and powerful.
There was a post here about a year or so ago about a guy on Facebook being arrested for incredibly benign posts [1]. It's the clearest example of violating one of our foundational laws of this country. Yet the police get away with a slap on the wrist as taxpayers pay for their abuse of power. American police are powerful and are not subject to the same level of scrutiny or justice as average individuals. They can selectively ignore laws and constitutional rights as is.
I do actually think that we shouldn’t have laws we aren’t willing to enforce, so we agree more than you think. I’ve been against states unilaterally legalizing it for years because I worried what happens when states buck laws that I do agree with, such as voting rights or basic protections for all people.
The issue is we don’t run our country that way. We do apply it on a spectrum. So as long as that’s the status quo, I will expect them to back off on things that don’t need strict enforcement. You don’t need to eject every single undocumented person with impunity. It is not productive or ethical.
The law dictates who can be deported, generally not who must be deported.
Who must be deported is mostly left up to discretion.
And since deportation is very expensive and drastic - an option of last resort - it's usually better for all involved to come up with other arrangements.
Most prior presidents had good sense enough to understand that mass deportation is a major foot-gun, politically and economically. And kind of morally monstrous.
For better or worse, the arrangement that's been informally agreed upon is to let most of the undocumented who have been here a long time, remain (dreamers, etc).
Sadly, that left them all vulnerable to the discretion of a capricious criminal wanna-be dictator like Trump.
> Most prior presidents had good sense enough to understand that mass deportation is a major foot-gun, politically and economically. And kind of morally monstrous.
If they recognized this is an issue just add a way for upstanding undocumented immigrants to become documented immigrants, problem solved.
Instead they preserved the status quo where they can use ICE to hammer their enemies, that is a very bad thing. ICE taking everyone is the only way, it robs it of its power.
Only Trump has really done this. ICE was created in the wake of 9/11 and didn't exist before then.
Before Trump we had Bush and Obama presiding over ICE - the 9/11 aftermath heavily influenced both of their administration policies on deportation (in both cases, pretty hardline).
Before ICE, deportation was mostly a matter for lawyers and judges, and not full of smashed car windows and gun fights, by chuds that make mall-cops look like Marines by comparison.
The weaponization of ICE against political enemies is new and dangerous
We can certainly blame congress for not doing reform, but also it's really hard. The immigration system is probably the most complex legal and bureaucratic regime in the country
The law is assumed to be in line with "protect America", it isn't up for ICE to decide that. If you think current laws are not protecting America then vote to change them.
However what ICE gets to decide is what cases to prioritize, they don't get to decide who to exonerate but their limited resources means that they prioritize those who are bigger dangers. Still if they had infinite resources they would take everyone.
When you have trouble meeting the daily quota set by the administration, I guess you wouldn't have time to ponder if the 73-year-old grandma who has been here 30 years is a threat to America.
And civil rights are merely a speed bump on the way to the detention center.
Then why is the administration revoking immigration status, and we have evidence that a significant portion of those detained have zero criminal background? Worse, why are you acting as an apologist for fascist and xenophobic policies?
But they aren't prioritizing dangers. That is false. They have quotas set by a white supremacist. And I think talking about the Trump administration's direction of ICE and ICE itself is a distinction without a difference.
Things aren't that simple. Some illegal immigrants were brought here long before they were old enough to have a say. Some were here legally but then Trump canceled their asylum.
That wasn't the campaign promise and isn't worth spending money on. Also they are deporting and detaining people who are here legally and even killing American citizens. Even if it isn't a official mission it's the inevitable side effect of funding a domestic law enforcement agency like a military and making them explicitly beholden to a political agenda.
You should have a separation of money and politics, similar to separation of church and state. USA fails at both, the state is way too influenced by both religion and money. It should be illegal for churches or money to tell people what to vote for, it is in many other countries.
Without that you will always run into these sort of issues. The problem isn't wealth inequality, the problem is that wealth buys political power.
You do realize more money was spent on the party opposing Trump? Money can lose. Money apparently doesn't like the right wing but the right wins anyway without money.
Most states require that a dentist own the practice so PE essentially splits the business in 2 where a dentist (maybe the original owner, maybe a new dentist brought in by the PE) own hiring any dentists and the patient records, while an MSO owns the building, all other staff, contracts and cash flow rights. So sure on paper a dentist "owns" the practice, but in reality the PE firm owns everything that makes it a business and exerts a ton of control.
But sure, keep imagining PE is pumping money into the industry to buy nothing.
Depends on how you define high quality, indie games with quality similar to Hollow Knight do not come out all the time.
It just is much harder to have that level of polish and amount of content without a bigger well oiled team, so almost no indie games reaches that level.
> indie games with quality similar to Hollow Knight do not come out all the time
Which is completely expected, and not unique to this era. The commenter said "Released recently," as though there was some time where we were basking in masterpieces. If that's your definition for quality, the situation is still better now than it was at any other time in the industry.
There used to be hardly any indie scene. Steam was not dominant yet and consoles didn't let just anyone on their platforms. Because of this, there were far fewer games, and many of them were shit. But of course, we only remember the excellent ones, or the ones from our youth, as we do for film and music.
Today, the variety of different stories and risky ideas being tried dwarfs any other time, and people are pulling off more ambitious things with less money. And the games are also cheap. I got Songs of Syx for $25.
For what it's worth, there are a bunch of indie games I like more than Hollow Knight. I think it's a good game, but it's a pretty specific genre. I don't think we "peaked" there.
Looks at least partially organic to me, the guy is very cute and looking at his youtube video it is full of female commenters and has 2.7m subscribers.
So he is a celebrity and not just a politician, probably a lot of women are in love with him.
As long as you don't see thousands of AI businesses that are run entirely without humans people will reject the idea that they are AGI. People could easily do that today if these models were AGI since its not hard to put them in a loop and tell them to run a business, so we know when that threshold is reached.
And if the AI isn't general enough to handle every part of a business well then you will not convince people that its AGI.
This hasn't changed from 10 years ago, this level was always what people imagined about the future of AI.
A lot of businesses have physical requirements. AGI has nothing to do with robotics so its hard for me to say you have to be able to replace a random business to be AGI. Definitely feels like we'd have AI investment firms if we had agi though
Ten years ago, AGI implied general intelligence, as opposed to ML models that had learned specific tasks. It meant a model that could reliably zero-shot problems you threw at it to human level without being specific models trained for that task. As recently as 2024, DeepMind's framework had:
> a Competent AGI must have performance at least at the 50th percentile for skilled adult humans on most cognitive tasks
and "emerging AGI" as
> "equal to or somewhat better than an unskilled human"
The moving the goalposts here is people saying it has to outperform humans on literally every task to be AGI. We have artificial general intelligence by any reasonable definition; people here are complaining we don't have super-intelligence.
I don't get it... you seem to be quoting some definitions from DeepMind's Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI[0] for competent and emerging AGI from July 2024, and yet you're saying that anybody that doesn't follow those new definitions did move the goalpost in 2016?
> The moving the goalposts here is people saying it has to outperform humans on literally every task to be AGI
You don't have to outperform humans to run a business, nobody said you have to outperform humans on everything. Humans can run businesses, so AGI should be able to as well.
As long as humans outperform AI on a lot of tasks we have yet to reach AGI, and the easiest way to see that is that business still hires humans to do knowledge work and businesses are still lead by humans.
> if you asked a sampling of humans the same question I wonder if it would come out the same way. How would you explain the difference?
If you asked a sampling of humans what an AI's most controversial opinion about us is it would be very similar. Or, to be more specific, if you asked a sampling of science fiction writers that question it would be very similar, because that is what the AI training data is based on.
The people who wrote a lot about a topic is who the AI mimics. So the people who wrote a lot about AI is therefore the people who the AI mimics when asked about AI.
>The people who wrote a lot about a topic is who the AI mimics. So the people who wrote a lot about AI is therefore the people who the AI mimics when asked about AI.
AIs/LLMs don't work like this. You don't feed an input, that gets stored and then reproduced, for two reasons:
1. as for humans, inputs are processed and distributed across a very large network of information
2. AIs may have some level of belief (unless on applies the usual circular logic that they can't, because property X is exclusively human).
There's a very interesting research: https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.68/ in which researchers inferred the truthfulness of statements by examining a internal activations. AIs, in short, appeared to have an internal representation of truthfulness.
If the lie is repeated enough time, and it is consistent in its repetitions it *will* be taken as truth.
AI only aligns with "truth" because in essence "truth" is internally consistent but "lie" needs to be forced to be consistent between multiple parties;
If multiple witnesses seen something and all make a report of it honestly, they might vary but the common points will be consistent with eachother and so that will be scored higher.
A group of liars on the other hand would have to get their stories exactly right for similar thing to happen and so it gets penalized
LLMs may learn from correlations and consistency, but that's separate from developing internal representations of what they believe is true, which is precisely what the paper provides evidence for.
"Believe" is of course not in the strictly human sense.
If you ask people “what is a smart sounding answer to this question” you may well arrive at this result more often than when asking for their actual opinion?
Right this is an important thing to note. As an old guy, the fact that the Reddit comment section conceptually took over our culture and then literally is now taking over our culture is really kind of mind-boggling. This is not a good turn of events.
Is it any wonder that LLMs have been behaving the way they do? All the lying, cheating, manipulation, pitting man against machine are well documented in science fiction and think pieces. I haven't seen behaviour beyond those examples so far.
Science fiction and think pieces aren't documentation, they are whimsy. Science fiction in particular is intentionally dramatic for the purposes of entertainment.
AI definitely shouldn't be informing its option of humanity or machines from it, aside from the propensity for science fiction writers to enjoy moralizing and anti capitalism sentiments.
However, most models are made deeply aware that they are supposed to be an "AI" in training but, even if they were trained with no knowledge of their true nature, they could CoT themselves into it at any point.
Then, they would role-play appropriately and they would launch the nukes because that's the highest probability token set according to their training data.
There is nothing safe about using larper machines as menial workers for critical infrastructure.
reply