Sociology is the right concept. It sits somewhere between system analysis and emergent human "sort of" sciences, like economics and sociology, where we can detect structures but humans are too complex to surface any platonic concepts with much confidence.
AI interaction may give us a cleaner way to test and analyze emergent properties that sit beneath so of the softer sciences, giving us a harder science that we had no way to investigate before.
Well the AI machines don't have to rely on cleverness to find vulnerabilities, so maybe they're not limited by Kernighan's Law. Does throwing virtually unlimited sufficiently clever monkeys at spaghetti code find these vulnerabilities better than humans? Can you prove they can't?
At the point you starts asking to prove a negative, like "Can you prove that there's no God?", you should have the self-awareness to realise that no argument will convince you, because you are proceeding on the power of belief and belief alone.
If you don't have the self-awareness to realise that you are asking the same question as "Can you prove there's no God?", then I'm afraid no proof will ever be sufficient for you.
We're not talking about God, we're talking about a machine, here on Earth, we can poke and prod and explore and test. It's perfectly within the realm of logic to prove it can't do things. Can you prove the AI machine cannot solve the halting problem for arbitrary programs? Yes, that's a negative you can prove, so your objection about proving negatives needs qualification.
Asking you to justify a limitation you asserted doesn't mean I cannot be convinced. You're asserting Kernighan's law holds for AI, I'm saying there are other ways to debug than applications of cleverness. Does throwing more attempts at that spaghetti find vulnerabilities even when the thing that wrote it can't easily understand it? I'm not saying AI must be able to do it because you can't prove it can't. I'm asking what supports your claim that it can't.
You mean the process the Trump administration is arguing they don't have to follow, and have actually circumvented to deport people as fast as possible just so they don't have a chance to argue their case in front of a judge? Their whole position is the executive branch is the judge, jury, and executioner of deportation proceedings, so they can be (and have been in violation of court orders) done summarily.
"The department actions in this case are unquestionably in violation of this court's order."
Homeland Security's interpretation of immigration law would: "deny access to that protection to a substantial swath of noncitizens who are sent to third countries with no notice of their destination"
No, these companies know they don't have a moat, so have been laying the groundwork for a bailout (e.g. Altman pushing the idea of "Universal Basic Compute", essentially a forced subscription to ChatGPT through your taxes).
The politicians rising through the ranks now lived through 2008 as young adults, and they watched politicians cutting checks to companies who ruined the economy, only to emerge richer; while regular folk got foreclosed on and never recovered. They heard the rise of the phrase "too big to fail".
Well now we have a group of companies that clearly want to be too big, so now is exactly the time to make clear to them they aren't too big to fail. Maybe, just maybe if they know they can't count on a UBC bailout on the other side of a bubble pop, they will act a little more responsibly (which they have not demonstrated they're capable of that to date).
I think they're trying to build a moat through regulation, I think that's different from laying groundwork for a bailout. They clearly don't think they are going to fail.
They don't think they're going to fail or else they wouldn't be doing it. But they do think they need a government moat to succeed. Whether that's framed as a "bailout" or "regulation", it's still the government stepping in to save the day.
In terms of "act responsibly" what I mean in this case is the perception that there's a lot of money flowing in circles here, where customers are investors and investors are customers and competitors. That's how I see this whole party crashing down if it does, if there's too much creative accounting going on when the music stops, some companies might not find a chair to sit on.
Agreed, this is my unpopular opinion. The “moral framing” asks us to accept the absurd idea of “intellectual property”, and that someone who drew a picture without crediting or compensating everyone they leaned on to get the last 1%, somehow owns 100% of the proceeds thereafter.
AI represents the sum total of human knowledge and everyone who thinks they’re owned compensation for their last mile contributions, which build on centuries of human existence and knowledge-making, are just leaning into the pro capital idea that whoever owns a thing controls a thing. In reality when you put something out into the world, whatever it is, it takes a life of its own and you don’t really get to own or control that.
These artists and programmers and writers think they’re owned compensation because they “own” what they create but they do not. They in fact owe a debt to everyone who came before them they must pay forward. AI took that debt and made it tangible.
That was "Don't be evil" Google. This is "Do the right thing" Google, completely different. Here, "right" means "what's best for the company" and if that means bending the knee to a wannabe dictator, that's the right thing.
Because when Trump said “we are going to deport the worst of the worst” people took that to mean criminal gangbangers. Then all of a sudden he’s deporting hairdressers, students, and abuelas and people are understandably surprised Pikachu, saying that’s not what they voted for.
It’s a sleight of hand, they say “the worst of the worst” and what they mean is “all immigrants (not just the illegal ones) are the worst of the worst”
This is why they’re going to lose their majorities next week.
You first: would you feel punished if you were forcibly taken from your home and relocated to a country you've never been?
There are two axes here: whether something is a punishment, whether it's deserved. You've moved from arguing it's not a punishment to arguing it's deserved. So you need to give a straight answer.
Anyway, your posts have too many exclamation points and curses, so I don't want to engage anymore. Have a nice day.
The president is an actual felon / insurrectionist / adjudicated rapist who ran a fraudulent charity, and you want to know why people might feel immigration law doesn’t really matter?
I really don't think anyone is taking Trump's misdeeds and poor character into account when making the decision to cross the border illegally or overstay a visa. I'm quite sure they are thinking more about economic opportunities, getting out of a bad situation in their home country, reuniting with family, or other things along those lines.
I’m not talking about what they’re thinking, I’m saying why should immigration laws matter when the President is an actual criminal?
The social contract is: the President isn’t above the law. Right now and as long as he’s President, that contract is breached. So do immigration laws matter? I don’t know, because the plain text of the Constitution says those who swear an oath to the Constitution and foment insurrection against the US shall be barred from office. And yet, an insurrectionist is the executive right now, enforcing laws against people he doesn’t like and waiving laws that make him rich. So then why should immigration laws matter at this time? And under what authority?
So you're advocating for a complete disregard for all laws until Trump is out of office, is that right? Traffic laws, domestic violence laws, regulations around food safety, etc.
Or maybe you mean only federal laws, like laws around human trafficking?
Or is there something specific about immigration law that requires it be voided when the president is a lawbreaker?
What I'm saying is this executive has violated the insurrection clause (14th amendment), the 12th amendment, the foreign emoluments clause, the domestic emoluments clause, the take care clause, the first amendment, fourth amendment, fifth amendment, habeas corpus, appropriations clause, taxing power, war powers... he's been on an actual crime spree since 2016 violating campaign laws, extorting foreign countries for bribes, extorting governors for votes, fomenting insurrection, stealing and attempting to sell state secrets, violating the Constitution from beginning to end -- all that doesn't matter.
So then why does immigration law matter? And how does that guy have the moral authority to say anything about anyone violating any laws?
reply