Surely at some point, but it hasn’t yet happened in my short 3 years owning one

“I don’t like regulation so I’m going to call it names”

Since hugging face we know these things are escaping out into the web and collaboratively hacking actual companies. The potential damage done to life and property is now kinetic.

Either we get a regulatory framework or the next hacked companies won’t be as kind as HF, will actually sue these labs for damages, and win. Where will that leave the US frontier.

I think that’s how it should play out. Your AI, your “hack,” your damages.

If my dog bites my neighbor I can get sued.

Everyone here keeps their money in bank or brokerage accounts, because we trust the law to protect us if the banks try to steal our stuff.

We are seeing that foreign countries no longer believe the USA is still a nation of laws.

This thread made clear that your conversation partner will say whatever it takes to avoid understanding the virtue in another way of living than the way they've chosen for themselves. Some people are like this. I for one really appreciated your writing so thank you for your role in this thread

I understand perfectly well what you consider virtuous about Berry's way of living. I simply don't agree that those things are virtues; in fact I consider most of them to be the opposite. Understanding another value system does not require agreeing with its values.

The point is that there's no evidence Berry was a hypocrite

That's a different and much weaker claim than “he lived exactly what he preached.” I challenged the latter.

How do you square this opinion with the fact that people actually do get voted into office and enact policies with grand repercussions on history and society?

Did you? Are they reading this? Until they do it remains true in fact and not just in spirit.

"People" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

This is a vile analogy, whose implication so twists the American tradition that I blush with shame to read it from a possible countryman.

What American tradition? I'll let Lincoln speak, since you have already given voice to his opposition.

"As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

Yes, all men are created equal. They have the equal right to live in their country. A Russian has just as much a right to live in Russia as an American does in America. And I have just as much a right to move to Russia as a Russian has to move to America—i.e. none at all, it's a privilege than the government of each country may or may not grant.

Btw, I am a naturalized US citizen. I'm talking about myself here. I'm very grateful for what this country has given me, because I know it had no obligation whatsoever to do so.

You're not arguing against leftists, you're arguing against Abraham Lincoln.

If you want to know the answers to your questions, read about Abraham Lincoln.

And no I will never agree that policies created out of racism will somehow bear sweet fruit from poisoned water.

All over this thread you have been misreading and strawmaning others in order to seem more reasonable. Even in this thread you misread me: the vile part was the homeless analogy, not the policy.

It's just time to draw the line in the sand: yours are the ideas lead to suffering and genocide and nobody whose words are worth reading wants that.

It sounds like you haven't actually thought much about these issues, and you're quoting Lincoln, and fearmongering about "suffering and genocide", as a sort of thought-terminating cliche.

If you want to argue against the administration policies, I suggest you articulate a coherent and attractive philosophy of immigration instead of mudslinging. I'm not arguing with Lincoln--I'm arguing with you.

"yours are the ideas lead to suffering and genocide and nobody whose words are worth reading wants that"

Why aren't you saying this about the much harsher Swiss policy which was proposed?

I just don't think a country closing its borders is equivalent to "suffering and genocide". It's not the policy I favor for the US. I think you and I might even agree in terms of our preferred policies! But I still find your rhetoric annoying as heck. I want people to argue about immigration on the merits, not engage in melodramatic pearl-clutching.

Let me guess: You would probably claim that when white settlers first came to this continent, if they settled on Native land, and the Natives attacked them for being unwanted immigrants, that would be an act of genocide on the part of the settlers. Am I right?

Nobody is buying the analogy comparing deportation to Gulag equivalents to imperfect prison meals

> and governments won't force anything upon the AI sector until things get very bad?

I think Mamdani and AOC would do it yesterday if they were in charge, and they're incredibly popular politicians to their constituents. More like them are waiting in the wings. So I think it's cynical rather than realistic.

'if they were in charge' is the mechanism by which this will not be fixed. AOC has been so thoroughly vilified in the eyes of the majority of the country that she has no chance of, for example, a presidential run. The same is true of pretty much every progressive candidate. There is an enormously well funded (by both political parties) machine designed to grind progressives into dust and it is extremely effective.

The same was said about our current president, there was no chance he could win, and look where we are.

I can just about guarantee there will be several progressives running in '28, potentially AOC as one of them.

Even if a progressive doesn't win the nomination, whoever does could be pushed toward the progressive direction.

Also don't forget two years is a long time and things can change fast.

You're not wrong, I would have said the same about trump.

I think Trump benefitted somewhat from being a political 'dark horse' without any preexisting baggage but who knows!