u/tencircles

There are a lot of real problems with AI today. If public attention and policy energy get pulled toward an unfalsifiable thing called "recursive self-improvement," then the very real, measurable, present harms of AI (bias, surveillance, labor displacement, misinformation, concentration of power, safety failures, environmental costs) get less attention. That’s a serious practical cost based on a hunch pretending to be a quantitative measurement because people toss around numbers like "10%" with nothing quantitative to back it up.

I see you didn't read the article.

What method other than self report is available methodologically for resolution of the question? Interiority is constitutionally interior. Any method of observation of any phenomenon is categorically external. You can poke at it, you can watch what it does, you can infer about what might have caused the reaction, you can take fMRI readings, watch how weights from, whatever you'd like. You're still looking at the system from the outside.

There is no a priori version of "consciousness." Descartes was right. You can doubt everything but the doubter. So while a conscious thing can assert their own existence or interiority, nothing else can. That isn't something that's solved by building a better mouse trap, it's an epistemic wall enforced by the condition of being a subject.

Humans can't confirm or deny the interiority of other humans. We infer it based on behavior. So the correct epistemic posture, it would seem for both humans and AI, is to act as if the question is epistemically unavailable for resolution.

The issue I take with these kinds of questions is they treat consciousness as a binary rather than a float or a tensor. Given the diveristy we see in everything from ocotopuses to babies to Alan Turing, it seems far more likely to be broader than just concsiousness: yes/no?

Jag har bott i Sverige i sju år. Jag kommer från USA. Jag har en masterexamen. Jag äger ett företag, betalar löner och skatt. Min dotter är född här och har aldrig lämnat Sverige. Migrationsverket försöker för närvarande tvinga ut min fru och dotter ur landet. Är det här vad SD vill?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2741160/Red_Metal/

Neither really. It just helps scrape your chatGPT exported chats for things you want claude to know.
It works by using keywords / phrases. Some of the default ones are "Never" "I like" "I hate" etc. Then it compresses those down in a set of instructions for claude (or any agent really).

Could be about personality. But if you want to focus on info/data then you can do that. It's not connected online anywhere, it's a tool that claude can use to make a distilled one page custom instructions.

Line go up. Hmmm now where have I heard this argument before?

Unless I missed a constitutional amendment somewhere, "antagonism" is not a capital offense, especially not one adjudicated on the sidewalk by armed federal agents. This is blaming the umbrella for the rain.

The legitimacy of federal enforcement depends not only on legality, but on proportionality, accountability, and the consent of the governed.

Sanctuary policies are not resistance to law; they are assertions of local sovereignty within a federalist system, a principle enshrined in the Tenth Amendment. I may not agree with every application of those policies, but I agree far less with federal overreach into state and local governance. Refusing to deputize local resources for federal civil enforcement is not "non-cooperation." It is the exercise of a constitutional right.

Escalation does not occur because localities challenge enforcement. It occurs when enforcement becomes untethered from oversight and proportionality. When civilians are killed and local authorities are barred from investigating (even with a judicial warrant) public trust erodes, and rightly so.

A society governed by laws requires that those laws apply equally to all. If wearing a CBP badge grants immunity from criminal accountability, then we are no longer a constitutional republic. We are a dual state.

When “lawful authority” operates without restraint, and demands obedience in place of legitimacy, it invites the very resistance it claims to prevent.

There should be an investigation. 

Reports indicate that local police were denied access to the scene by CBP, even after returning with a warrant from a state judge. 

I will go out on a limb here and say calling it murder is justified.

Video evidence shows his hands were nowhere near a weapon and were either trying to support his body as he was being beaten by a group of nine agents, or trying to cover his head. 

The video also shows the agents removing the weapon from its holster on his hip. Statements from the police indicate the man had a license for concealed carry in the state of Minnesota. 

While the weapon was being removed, the agent who shot him was looking directly at the weapon being removed while unholstering his weapon. 

2-3 seconds later, the agent fired.

At the time of the first shot, the Mr. Pretti's hands were on the ground and he was kneeling, seemingly disoriented from numerous blows to the head. Mr. Pretti was unarmed at this time and made no move toward a weapon, and made no movements indicating intent to harm.

After a brief one second pause, the officer fired a volley of rounds. At which point, Mr. Pretti collapsed, seemingly unconscious or in shock. 

Another pause, during which an ICE agent in the foreground grabs the phone of a woman who was recording the incident. 

The agents back away (presumably to get away from live rounds going off in close proximity).

2 seconds after the last shot. The shooter backed away slowly and fired another volley rounds at the prone, severely injured Mr. Pretti. 

I support due process. A full and transparent investigation should be conducted and if evidence is sufficient for a trial, the shooter and his accomplices should be held to account in a court of law and should be accorded the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. 

However, given the overwhelmingly clear evidence. I have no qualms about calling a spade a spade here and saying that what I saw in 5 different videos 2 in-depth analyses is consistent with an unlawful killing of another person with intent to kill, i.e. murder.

At the time shots were fired, Mr. Pretti was unarmed, prone, and presented no credible or immanent threat to law enforcement or other individuals.

This was, plainly, a summary execution.

The last thing this man did was to try to protect others from violence at the the hands of the state. May he rest in peace. May those responsible, and those who would lie to protect them get their day in court. God knows, Alex Pretti never will.

This is wrong. As someone who carries, you should be familiar with the standard.

Fear alone is not a legal justification for deadly force. The standard is the officer’s reasonable perception of an immediate lethal threat at the moment each shot was fired. Not whether someone was armed earlier, arguing, or “picked a fight.”

Lawful gun ownership does not make a person a lawful target. If the weapon was not in his control and he was physically restrained, the threat analysis changes completely.

In the footage I have seen, the agents initiated physical force while he was holding a phone, not attacking. The legal question is not attitude or compliance. It’s whether he still had the immediate ability to cause death or serious harm when shots were fired.

Jag tror att du överskattar både rationaliteten och stabiliteten i det som pågår.

Att hänvisa till ”strategiska intressen” förklarar inte varför man offentligt hotar allierade, ifrågasätter deras territoriella suveränitet och samtidigt underminerar bindande fördrag som USA självt har ratificerat. Det är inte så seriös geopolitik bedrivs; det är så man destabiliserar sin egen säkerhetsordning.

Idén om att en ”djup stat” automatiskt skulle korrigera en president som agerar utanför rättsstatens ramar saknar stöd i hur makt faktiskt fungerar. Institutioner fungerar bara så länge de upprätthålls i praktiken. Inte som abstrakta garantier. Historien är full av exempel där just detta antagande visat sig fatalt fel.

Det här handlar inte om förenklade psykologiska narrativ eller medial dramaturgi. Det handlar om konkreta handlingar som bryter mot internationell rätt, NATO:s grundprinciper och USA:s egen konstitutionella maktfördelning. Att kalla detta ”bara strategi” är inte analytiskt sofistikerat; det är att bortse från rättsliga och institutionella realiteter.

Geopolitik är inte ett schackbräde utan regler. När en aktör öppet signalerar att reglerna är villkorliga, är det inte längre strategi. Det är bara systemrisk.

Not something I support, or have engaged with personally. I'm not repulsed as long as it's consensual.

Ethically, it's complicated in a way that generalizations likely don't solve. Legally speaking, I don't agree with legislating morality. That just begs the question "Whose morality?"

Regarding percentages, I suspect a large silent minority are indifferent-to-repulsed rather than active participants.

There's a word for that. It's called perjury and it is punishable by law...you know if we still care about that sort of thing.

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

I'm stating facts about National Security, who benefits, and why the justifications given collapse under scrutiny.

I'm not sure what you're responding to.

This should go without saying: national security is not land ownership.
It is alliances, trust, predictability, coordination, and shared deterrence.

There is only one reading of the U.S. executive branch’s statements and actions regarding Greenland that survives scrutiny: they materially benefit the strategic interests of America's competitors and adversaries while actively threatening those of their closest allies.

The arguments offered to justify this posture collapse under basic examination:

Over 75% of Americans oppose it.
Greenland is already part of NATO; the U.S. already maintains a military presence there.
An attack on Greenland would invoke Article 5, implicating the United States itself.
A trade war with the EU disproportionately harms U.S. consumers and workers.
Diplomatic isolation aligns directly with adversarial strategic objectives.
Undermining America’s most valuable alliances weakens, rather than strengthens, national security.

Should note that rights are not framed as something granted to the government. The bill of rights restricts the government from infringing upon the rights of the people.

From the declaration, rights are asserted as axioms and that the government’s purpose is to secure those rights. Its power comes solely from the people.

Yes. You heard that right. The government has no power outside of the legitimate power to protect the rights of the people. If the government abandons that responsibility, it is no longer a legitimate government.

These Nazi fucks would love everyone to think power comes from authority. In reality, authority comes only from power consensually granted to it by the people.