Pentagon deal sparks protest outside of OpenAI HQ in San Francisco

[BackAgain]

What does illegal surveilance and illegally detaining citizens have to do with state secrets? That is Gestapo and KGB behavior.

Again, if any collection of citizens are implicated in some terrorist type conspiracy, it could very well be that it would be a massive mistake to treat them as mere criminals. See, mere criminals get the benefit of a right to Constitutional protections.

But I see no evidence that enemy soldiers or terrorists get such niceties. If some powerful enemy nation invaded America, they wouldn’t be put on trial. They’d be obliterated on sight. And even American citizens don’t deserve our constitutional protections when it comes to terrorism.

I whole-heartedly approve of denying such individuals of any expectation of privacy when they are plotting a terrorist attack. And just as we might shoot an invading enemy soldier (hey no trial, no presumption of innocence, no right to counsel and no right to any trial); just shot.

So why would any tool used to deny them of successfully conspiring (in secrecy) to commit some mass killing terrorist event not warrant an invasion of their privacy?

 

[Darkwind]

PLA or ABS?

PLA. I don't have the printer rigged to vent outside yet.

 

[ding]

Again, if any collection of citizens are implicated in some terrorist type conspiracy, it could very well be that it would be a massive mistake to treat them as mere criminals. See, mere criminals get the benefit of a right to Constitutional protections.

But I see no evidence that enemy soldiers or terrorists get such niceties. If some powerful enemy nation invaded America, they wouldn’t be put on trial. They’d be obliterated on sight. And even American citizens don’t deserve our constitutional protections when it comes to terrorism.

I whole-heartedly approve of denying such individuals of any expectation of privacy when they are plotting a terrorist attack. And just as we might shoot an invading enemy soldier (hey no trial, no presumption of innocence, no right to counsel and no right to any trial); just shot.

So why would any tool used to deny them of successfully conspiring (in secrecy) to commit some mass killing terrorist event not warrant an invasion of their privacy?

The best analogy I can think of would be banning and confiscating all guns from peaceable law abiding citizens because of the bad acts of a few bad men. We shouldn't be compromising the civil liberty of all law abiding citizens because of the bad acts of a few bad men.

Sometimes eliminating the risk is worse than living with the risk.

 

[BackAgain]

The best analogy I can think of would be banning and confiscating all guns from peaceable law abiding citizens because of the bad acts of a few bad men.

That’s not even remotely analogous.

We shouldn't be compromising the civil liberty of all law abiding citizens because of the bad acts of a few bad men.

That’s not what I said or suggested. I was talking of people who weren’t even criminals, but worse. I even used modifiers and every thing!

Sometimes eliminating the risk is worse than living with the risk.

True BUT::

Sometimes living with the risk is MUCH worse than eliminating the risk — because we all know that people have no rights at all when they’re dead.

 

[ding]

That’s not even remotely analogous.

That’s not what I said or suggested. I was talking of people who weren’t even criminals, but worse. I even used modifiers and every thing!

True BUT::

Sometimes living with the risk is MUCH worse than eliminating the risk — because we all know that people have no rights at all when they’re dead.

Of course it is analogous. We shouldn't lower our civil right standards because of the bad acts of a few bad men.

 

[BackAgain]

Of course it is analogous. We shouldn't lower our civil right standards because of the bad acts of a few bad men.

Lower our civil rights? Who the hell is talking about lowering civil rights.

Again, why on Earth would we wish to grant a right to require a warrant to spy on terrorist conspirators. That might make sense if terrorism was simply a “crime.”

It’s not.

And, still, no. Your analogy completely lacks any meaningful analog.

 

[ding]

Lower our civil rights? Who the hell is talking about lowering civil rights.

Again, why on Earth would we wish to grant a right to require a warrant to spy on terrorist conspirators. That might make sense if terrorism was simply a “crime.”

It’s not.

And, still, no. Your analogy completely lacks any meaningful analogy.

What do you think the Patriot Act did? Why do you think the government wants AI without human safegaurds? Get ready to be big brothered.

 

[MisterBeale]

Elon is building an army of robots and OpenAI is helping the government build mass surveillance systems and AI that can kill humans without oversight.

Haven't we seen this movie before?

Pentagon deal sparks protest outside of OpenAI HQ in San Francisco

Over the weekend, OpenAI announced that they will allow the Department of War to use its technology.

www.kalw.org

"Late last week, the Pentagon dropped its AI contractor, Anthropic, after the company refused to allow the Department of War to use its technology for autonomous weapons systems or for mass surveillance of American citizens.

OpenAI jumped on the opportunity to become the Pentagon’s AI contractor, announcing the deal late on Friday.

The activist group QuitGPT are holding a rally outside of OpenAI’s headquarters in San Francisco from 4 to 6 p.m. today, to protest the deal."