Invertedouroboros

Yeah, I know. Just leaving room for miracles I guess.

On paper there's plenty that could. The Supreme Court could have stepped in to stop a lot of this. Executive orders only stand in places where a full fledged law from congress doesn't cover the issue. The military is theoretically as obligated to disobey an unlawful order as they are to obey a lawful one and states are theoretically pretty insulated from federal interference except in a few explicit areas.

But, we don't live on paper and none of those protections exist unless there are people out there who are ready, willing, and able, to act on them. What happens if the Supreme Court somehow manages to rule against the administration and they just flagrantly disregard the order? What happens if Trump orders the military to start attacking US citizens openly or starts an illegal war without congressional approval? What happens if Trump runs for president again in 2028? Or just says he's president for life and we're not doing elections anymore?

The answer is nothing, unless people stand up against him. And... so far... we haven't seen much of that. Not from people in government at any rate. We've seen a bit from normal folks on the ground in places like LA, but our government's been working to neuter the power of popular protest since the civil rights protests, perhaps even earlier. So reasonable people can disagree on the efficacy of that.

I really don't want to echo the doomer line I've seen written here a lot, but yeah, we're probably fucked. Like maybe if something was done like... a decade ago? Two? Maybe we wouldn't be in this situation. But... as things stand? I don't even know if the damage from the first Trump presidency can ever truly be repaired and more damage is being done on a weekly, almost a daily basis. Personally? I think it's only a matter of time before this man breaks the global economy irreparably. In a way that simply can't be swept under the rug again. Domestically? Who the fuck knows at this point? I have to resist the urge to laugh out loud whenever people ask where I see myself in five years because at this point I've got no idea what the next two weeks are gonna hold.

So... yeah. Fun times in the ol US of A.

I mean, we kinda already ended up there with the Ashley Madison hack in 2015. Problems with that site aside, I feel like it's kinda the blueprint for everything wrong with companies that retain personally identifable info on folks. If a company collects details like your driver's license, it's not a question of if it gets out but when. There's just no way to collect that sort of data and truly keep it safe.

But, it seems like we've kinda forgotten how to learn lessons in the modern day, so I'm sure this was an isolated issue and we'll never see it's like again.

(/s on that last part, just in case that wasn't blindingly obvious.)

I feel like you could actually do some cool comedy game turned horror with that. You know it's all fun and games until he gets it right.

Every day we get closer to teaching the robots how to feel pain.

I'm gonna be honest, I did not think this was staged when I first read it...

...Because why on earth would that be what you want to stage? Like sure, they say in the article it was to "prove Putin isn't hiding behind others" or some such shit. The message it sends to me is "our air defense is so shit we can't even lock it down when the guy in charge comes to visit". What a bizarre choice of propaganda.

Not a burden. We're social animals at the end of the day. Everyone relies on everyone else to keep this whole thing we got going. Participating in that doesn't make you a burden, it makes you human. Hope you get what you need OP, we're all here rooting for ya.

"Lettuce Speak".

I think... there was a kernel of a decent instinct there. At the point that John Oliver bit came out I feel like we were all kinda just marveling at how far stupid playground insults managed to get Trump. "Well, ok, maybe he's onto something. Let's try it and see what happens." Was a fine reaction for the time, but I think it was best abandoned quickly.

In 2025, not useful in the slightest. I don't know what is precisely, but I don't think it's petty name calling.

You know, there's that old yarn about Alfred Nobel. That his obituary was accidentally published early and that he was shocked and dismayed to discover that the only thing he'd be remembered for was the invention of Dynamite. So, he went on to create the Nobel Peace Prize, in the hopes of contributing something other than death to the world.

I'm not saying Nobel was a fantastic dude, but at least he cared enough to not be remembered as the guy that made it possible for your son to get blown to peices in a war. He wanted something positive associated with name.

Even that seems too high a bar for these folks. They've become so entrenched in their own little world that I don't think they much care what anyone outside it thinks.

Obviously this is all stupid and you'll find problems anywhere you choose to look.

The problem I'm finding is this, if Facebook truly is betting on AI becoming better as a way to encourage growth then why are they further poisoning their own datasets? Like ok, even if you exclude everything your own bots say from your training data, which you could probably do since you know who they are, this is still encouraging more AI slop on the platform. You don't know how much of the "engagement" your driving (which they are likely just turning around and feeding back into the AI training set) is actually human, AI grifter, or someone poisoning the well by making your AIs talk to themselves. If you actually cared to make your AI better, then you can't use any of the responses to your bots as most of them will be of dubious providence at best.

Personally I'm rooting on the coming Hapsburg-AI issue so I don't really have that much of a problem with Facebook deciding more poison is a brilliant business move. But uh... seems real dumb if your actually interested in having an actually functional LLM.

Yeah, fucked up though it might be, I think that within the moral framework she's chosen to operate in she's "doing the right thing". That framework is monstrous and should be disqualifying for a position on the judiciary. But I think she’s got no moral qualms and would treat the morality that most of us have with a mixture of confusion and hostility.