> […] the president or any other elected person, their whole job is to serve people. Do what the people voted that person to do by putting aside all personal preferences, belief and ideologies.
I don’t see how you can say that, and then:
> In that regards, I wonder dignity, humility, empathy would have anything to do with governing
Like, those are the traits required to unselfishly serve others. See literally any religion or framework of ethics.
Yes, this stuck out to me, too. I use winter tires in the winter specifically for the snow and consistently below-freezing temps. Are there places people bother with winter tires that aren’t actually cold in the winter?
Are there any places that require winter tires by law that don’t have cold winters? I don’t know of anywhere in the US that even requires winter tires, although I think some states require you to have winter tires OR chains.
Sometimes the winters may be cold, some other times they may be exceptionally warm, and sometimes they're a mix of both. The law remains the same regardless what the winter was or is like. Countries that have exceptionally warm winters do not really have a winter conditions so I'd guess their law wouldn't have a requirement for winter tires or chains
Yes of course, anyone who lives somewhere with winter knows that some winters are colder than others. In the late fall when it is time to swap the tires, you don’t know in advance whether the winter will be harsh or mild, but people put snow tires on anyway in places where harsh winters are common.
It would only make sense to require them every winter if the large majority of winters were quite cold. As such, nowhere in the US requires winter tires, but someone else noted that Quebec does. This makes sense, since even a mild Quebec winter will spend most of the time getting below freezing.
I would be very surprised if there were a place that required winter tires by law where the winter does not always get and stay at or below freezing for significant periods of time almost every winter.
There are mountain passes in Oregon with posted signs during winter that say "winter tires or chains required". I'm not sure if you can actually be cited by an officer for not having them, but certainly you are a hazard to everyone on the road if you don't have them :)
Didn’t know it was required, but it makes sense, as it is indeed quite cold. Good thing I always have winter tires on in the winter anyway, so I’m not breaking the law when I drive to Montreal!
Isn't that what they're doing? "There's a better than 0 chance this thing could kill everyone in the next decade."
That might be too imprecise for the HN set but it's realistic for laypeople.
And none of the AI people talking about the risk are running into rooms full of people telling them Claude has gone mad and yelling at them to disconnect from the internet and turn off their devices immediately.
> That might be too imprecise for the HN set but it's realistic for laypeople.
Some 'laypeople' will be scared for a while and then return to more pressing issues and exactly nothing good will come out of that. If there really are some issues worth discussing the first step the AI doom crowd should do is to stop the PR offensive and concentrate on producing verifiable claims and actionable small steps. Otherwise their effort will fail this time and when/if a next time comes, they will have a lot less PR capital to burn.
Here's the reality: us plebs, regardless of how tech-savvy we are or aren't, have no say in what's going to happen.
There is no level of outrage that is going to stop the frontier AI labs, and the US government isn't going to step in to protect humanity. The Chinese are going to do what they're going to do. And so on.
So sit back, make some popcorn and enjoy the show.
>
Here's the reality: us plebs, regardless of how tech-savvy we are or aren't, have no say in what's going to happen.
This sentiment is incredibly out of place on HN. Facebook, Twitter, and many other very simple bits of tech transformed the world. Tiny startups founded by a few people have (also recently) ballooned into behemoths that hold vast amounts of economical and technical power.
Thanks to AI, it has never been quicker to go from idea to full fledged working product.
If anything will change the course of the world (for the better or worse), it will be a tech product, possibly created by someone on this forum.
> If anything will change the course of the world (for the better or worse), it will be a tech product, possibly created by someone on this forum.
You seem to be missing the point.
A small group of people created AI tech that they now say could be the end of humanity. They still want their companies to go public, but they also want the government to allow them to form a cartel so that they can, in their infinite wisdom, manage the risks so that they can try to prevent their tech from killing us all. And somehow they magically think that other nation-states developing similar tech (namely the Chinese) will go along with their plans.
As for how powerful Dario, Sam, et. al. really are: Trump says Dario is "pretending to be a perfect little angel" and claims there's a "sick conspiracy" against AI.
Having billions of dollars and being the head of a world-changing company doesn't buy the type of power you think it does. At best, it allows you to buy influence and pay your way out of liability for the harms your products cause.
The AI researcher in Mountain View making $2 million/year at Google has no more say in what's going to happen with AI than a plumber in Kalamazoo. The HNer working on a startup, in the final analysis, will in 50 years' time have left about as big a mark on the planet as a greeter at Walmart.
> Having billions of dollars and being the head of a world-changing company doesn't buy the type of power you think it does.
1. The product itself can change the world quickly and enormously, as I already pointed out.
2. The power of these huge companies and thus of their owners is immense. The effects of massive corruption in the USA are proof of that. Additionally, massive manipulation of algorithms and content in things like Tiktok, Twitter, Grok/ChatGPT, etc. can be and is done regularly, whether with 'good' intentions or not. Even just the basic control of what R&D money and time is spent on is huge.
> The HNer working on a startup, in the final analysis, will in 50 years' time have left about as big a mark on the planet as a greeter at Walmart.
With a defeatist attitude like "sit back and grab some popcorn", yes. You haven't shown in the least why an HNer couldn't change the course of history.
A key facet of the suggested risk is that these programs would attempt to mask whatever behavior would bring about the end of the world. A world in which AI doom could be detected before it’s too late and stopped by metaphorically running into rooms full of people telling people to unplug is less extreme than that in which doomers argue we are already living.
Alarm takes severity and scale. Forecasting double-digit odds of near-term human extinction on national television to a lay audience is more extreme than yelling to unplug rogue AI. For what it’s worth, the latter has already occurred numerous times at containable scales in leading labs, mitigated by the physical realities of computation, notwithstanding the competence of involved personnel. People running into rooms yelling is probably not a hypothetical.
One of the wildest things to me: Kagi actually warns you before renewals so you can cancel first if you want.
That's confidence in the product right there. I'd argue any subscription which won't do this is designed to exploit people who don't need or use a subscription.
I grew up in the 90s too, and I’m fairly certain that shooting paintball guns out of a taxi would have been generally frowned upon even during that halcyon era.
We used to raid the "dumpster" of nearly expired hostess products at the local hostess factory, and no bullshit fill the back of a jeep with twinkies and ho-hos and king dongs, then go drive on two lane roads and throw them out in front of oncoming traffic to try and get them to chase us.
I made the mistake of using my car as a paintball tank at an unofficial range. That stuff never came out of weather stripping on the windows and left streaks every time the windows rolled for years.
Two decades puts us back to the post-9/11 war on terror era, from which it seems like a fairly straight line to, for example, ICE murdering people in the streets.
So, yeah, political disasters take time to reach their conclusions, and the slide can be arrested at any point before it gets too bad. I think it’s probably correct that we’ve been in the midst of one for at least two decades, if not longer.
Yeah, speedbar and dired are built-in. Speedbar by default still opens in a new frame I think, but in emacs 31 there’s a config option to make it open in a side window without any additional tweaking needed.
The argument against CSAM is easy: the creation of the content is clearly harmful to the victims, its viewing and distribution furthers that harm, and its availability has the potential to increase demand.
The argument is that the child is revictimized with each viewing. Wouldn't it be the same for a murder victim?
The argument is that distributing child sex abuse material creates a demand for more of it. Wouldn't it be the same for murder videos?
There was a series of photos going around when I was a kid. A girl who died in a car accident. Horrible, gruesome, nightmare inducing photos of the aftermath were shared. The family was victimized by those photos being shared.
We live in a time where vore, nude photos shared without the subject's permission, and AI nudification software are all illegal. Why should it be legal to share photos and videos of violent crimes and accidents? How is that any different?
Thank you for sharing an argument. I for some reason was thinking more like medical gore, which I don’t think should be illegal, but I’m sympathetic to your argument re: violent crime. I don’t know that I agree about car crashes, though.
I haven’t really thought about this before, so I don’t know where I’d personally draw the line, if at all, but I understand better where y’all are coming from now.
What precisely is your definition of gore? Could you define it in a way that makes it illegal to share images of murders and car crashes as entertainment, without criminalizing, say, journalists documenting a war?
CNN covered the Daniel Pearl story just fine without showing the video. There's no good reason to share a murder video for entertainment just like there's no good reason to share a rape video for entertainment.
I didn't say there was a good reason, in fact I agree there is no good reason to share such videos for entertainment.
I asked a specific question about your definition of gore, so I could try to engage with your opinion in good faith without making assumptions. But instead of answering the question, you dodged it with a cherry-picked example that doesn't represent every scenario that I'm considering. That makes me inclined to believe that your position isn't particularly well-considered.
Maybe the reason you get downvoted whenever you bring this up while "nobody has a good argument on why it should remain legal" is because you don't provide enough substance for anyone to argue against...
Definition of gore would be something like photos/videos of people suffering from graphic bodily harm shared for entertainment purposes. Medical stuff shared in a professional setting is different. Crime scene photos shared during an investigation is different. I don't think anyone is arguing about what is and isn't gore.
So, a picture of someone "sleeping" with no obvious bodily harm isn't gore .. regardless of whether they're sleeping or whether they've been poisoned?
Yesterday morning I watched, as I was weeding, a mobile abattoir operator stun, drain blood, skin, gut and hang in a portable cool room eight full weight sheep, turning them over at about 12 minutes per sheep - pretty decent pace.
Later I helped make a bonfire to burn the eight sets of skins, heads, guts, trotters (which we shovelled and slung from a single axle trailer onto the wood pallets on top of the stacked wood underneath).
Some of this was filmed and posted to my 91 year old father (by the land owner) - is that "gore" ?
I'm thinking this is more about what you personally find disgusting and seeking to impose that PoV on everyone; butchers, nurses, first responders, farmers, etc.
I was specifically talking about photos and videos of people who have been murdered or died in accidents. Those photos should not be shared for entertainment just the same as photos of children being raped should not be shared for entertainment.
Yes, I do believe that killing animals is morally wrong, but that isn't what I was talking about.
You might want to review all that you have said, you started (IIRC) with "gore" (ill defined) to be treated as "Child Sexual Abuse Material" is - banned from the internet and a chargeable offence.
As an aside: I'm in the "victims of crime should be shielded from publication, especially prior to trial" camp - I'm even prepared to support the notion that perpetrators of crime should be largely scrubbed rather than glorified by the obsessive.
You're still not clear on where your proposed boundaries lie; Daniel Pearl was filmed being killed - that's a snuff video and quite distinct from "photos of people who have been murdered" - eg: I could link to a photo of Martin Luther King and I would assume that would be fine for you.
Perhaps work on sharpening your language about what is and isn't to be allowed in your new world order.
For example, my father, in his prime working for the St John's Volunteer Ambulance in remote areas, would likely have wanted at various times to have sent video of an impaled accident victim, still alive and in pain, to various doctors / fire responders, etc. in order to get pragmatic advice on how to stabilise and extract them.
This would effectively be transmitted torture porn.
This thread is so weird. Several people asking why gore should be as illegal as child porn, but with no followup from anyone so far with reasons. I am not trying to be sarcastic in asking why. I am legitimately curious.
> […] the president or any other elected person, their whole job is to serve people. Do what the people voted that person to do by putting aside all personal preferences, belief and ideologies.
I don’t see how you can say that, and then:
> In that regards, I wonder dignity, humility, empathy would have anything to do with governing
Like, those are the traits required to unselfishly serve others. See literally any religion or framework of ethics.
reply