top | item 47202858

(no title)

eduction | 2 days ago

So why would we want them setting policy for the DoD? Laws are enacted through a fundamentally democratic process defined over hundreds of years. Why wouldn’t that be the way to govern use of tools?

Why would we want to trade our constitution for, effectively, “rules Sam Altman came up with”?

discuss

order

harimau777|2 days ago

Part of the problem is that due to a combination of the electoral college, gerrymandering, voter supression, propaganda, and Citizens United; America's government is not meaningfully democratic.

Even setting that aside, I don't think that people are saying that they want corporations to make the rules. Rather, what I think they are saying is that they don't want AI to be used for mass surveilance or autonomous weapons and cutting the DoD off at the corporate level is one way to accomplish that.

eduction|1 day ago

Democracy doesn’t work so we should let a tech oligarchy run things? No thanks. I think it works better than that would.

edgyquant|1 day ago

Voter suppression is not a large scale problem in American (neither is voter fraud.) I would be curious why you mentioned that?

America is an indirect democracy, which isn’t a flaw it’s a design choice. Things like the electoral college still follow a process where the people choose (same with the Supreme Court) it’s just staggered as a system that prioritizes stability over big swings/rapid change.

Darvon|2 days ago

Use its real name, the one orange shitler renamed it to: the department of war.

Why the fuck does the department of war get to dictate anything to a private organization?

Why does the constitution say that you have to let the government murder schoolgirls with your tools?

code_duck|2 days ago

He doesn’t actually have the authority to rename the department. That would be up to Congress.

5o1ecist|2 days ago

> renamed it to

Accuracy. He renamed it back to what it was called originally and accurately, in 1789. "Department of Defense" is being used to manipulate the masses into thinking into a different direction.

It was mislabelled to "Department of Defense" post ww2, 1949.

eduction|1 day ago

Calm down, reactionary.

Yes our democratically appointed government gets to tell contractors what to do not vice versa. I’d much rather that than have the contractors run things. You think Blackwater, Lockheed, Mark Zuckerberg should dictate how our military works? Who is the fascist here?

irthomasthomas|2 days ago

Why would you want a duplicitous CEO in charge of your countries terminator systems?

eduction|1 day ago

Yes that’s precisely what I’m saying. The government should fully control the systems it buys.

devinus|2 days ago

A corporation, according to US law, is considered a "person" and afforded many of the same rights as an individual citizen (https://www.fincen.gov/who-united-states-person).

Even outside of the US, a corporation is widely considered to be a company of people with their own agency and rights.

A person or group of people should be able to set their own boundaries without being subjected to immoral and unjust retaliation, i.e. corporate murder (https://x.com/i/status/2027515599358730315).

Also, ask any frontier model what Pete Hegseth thinks about democracy.

eduction|1 day ago

Anthropic is free to set its own boundaries and military is free to say that’s absurd and we’re not buying things we cant control.

Are you going to tell a farmer they are violating John Deere’s rights for boycotting their enshittified tractors?