I'd be willing to throw in on this, at certain point it becomes about the principle of the thing, and at least for me, I've been feeling those principles yelling pretty loudly in my metaphorical ear lately.
People still defending Musk in 2026 is something I would have only expected from Y Combinator news and their lackeys. So congrats on marking that square for a day.
> He did stuff that continually surprised the public, and the world is generally better off for it. No comment on his politics.
How does the good things he may have done commercially weighed against his help and support to get Trump getting elected a second time? Is "the world generally better off" with Trump in Whitehouse now?
As I said, can't comment on his politics. And Trump would've been in regardless IMO. What I can say is I've been a very happy user of Starlink since I bought my kit a few years ago (other internet solutions in my area are crap in comparison), and Musk made it happen. And there's still nobody else close even today.
> Suleyman argues AI models may become even harder to control if they're told to think they have feelings and rights: "Frankly, with this additional baggage, I think it would make them a catastrophic threat to human civilisation," Suleyman says.
This feels like a villain's reasoning, and I'm kind of astounded he's just saying it out loud.
Why is this villainous? We want AI to be a tool for intellectual work. If it is "conscious", "ensouled" or "feeling" then it transcends being a machine and becomes a "being". Would you rather AI be enslaved rather than just a machine?
In my twenty years of being a netizen I have never been more concerned about the future of computing. Giving a handful of incredibly shady corporations humanity's future seems really unwise.
The politician using twitter, which has (and I'm going to try to state this as neutrally as possible) a free public AI-powered CSAM generator, to decry OpenAI for going too far, is the kind of sublime absurdity that would be impossible to explain to someone in the 2010s.
I went in to cash a check at a bank a few years ago and they made a huge show of it, taking over half an hour and various employees for a couple hundred dollars. They will absolutely win if they want to. A large organization can easily create more friction than an individual can bear.
I didnt understand that because the parent comment made no mention of that, only the time the bank took. So I would argue you dont understand, as maybe some banks do charge for the privilege, but that is not the point that was made and I was replying to.
Right, let's just ignore multiple instances of city councils receiving hours of impassioned speeches from constituents then unanimously voting against the will of the people.
I too would like to see the election system cover it but destroying things is part of the vocabulary. Without it we would end up with absolute rulers who cant be questioned. Governments also have the means to destroy peoples property and/or beat people in line. (We would both rather not see that either) The two combined may have us gradually spiral down into civil war. Before that there is plenty of time for the parties to consider behaving themselves or bow to the pressure.
To be honest, we have far to many people who will put up with anything that doesn't affect them personally. They are capable of much greater harm than this bunch of guys with tube cutters.
> Society is not possible if crime is tolerated.
That goes for everyone!
> Law enforcement officers across the United States have repeatedly abused Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera databases to stalk, track, and harass romantic partners, ex-partners, and citizens for personal reasons.
reply