The New American Dream: Start as a non-profit dedicated to humanity, pivot to a for-profit to scale and eventually find your final form as a subsidiary of the military industrial complex.
In other words, US tax payers are already paying customers of OpenAI, a few simply won’t be a “double” customer. This isn’t “exactly” fascism, no. It’s something though.
Dwindling number. But maybe? I mean, they're already investing at a level that's completely disconnected from actual results, based on magical thinking and hopium. Just take another hit.
A good reason to outlaw bribes is that politicians tend to be incredibly cheap and offer an extremely high ROI.
Albeit at the cost of a nice democracy.
You're forgetting that this is the same guy who managed to bankrupt a casino. He's not actually that good with money and until the latest bribe channels opened, eg Trump Coin and the Board of Peace, opened their finances may have been in a bit of a mess. Also I'd bet the ballroom donation was much larger, it's a massive blackhole of graft waiting to happen.
It's also not solely about money, you can get far just knowing how to chum it up with Trump when you get in the room with him. Look at the odd quasi-bromance between him and Mamdani who you'd expect to be enemy #1 but Mamdani knows how to schmooze the exact type of New York Guy Trump is.
For fascism, it's not always about getting something you think is a lot. It's about a power relationship. Trump has demonstrated that Nvidia will bow to his will.
It's also potentially an implementation of the foot-in-the-door technique (https://www.simplypsychology.org/compliance.html). It's a common manipulative strategy where you get someone to do a small favor for you which makes them much more likely to do a large favor for you later.
The terms of these markets do not account for a scenario, quite likely if authoritarian takeover does happen, where the House of Representatives is a rump organization which does not exercise effective power. There was a years-long period in Venezuela where the country's traditional legislature met and conducted business under the leadership of the opposition party, but actual legislative power was held jointly by the Supreme Court and a secondary legislature that Nicolas Maduro set up.
The branch of government tasked to execute the law has been ignoring laws. So we'll get a (from Trump's point of view) adversarial congress, so what, let's ignore them, what are they going to do about it?
Looking forward to a military platoon defying orders and seizing the president, hey, all countries suffer through coups, about time this young democracy go through one!
I feel this is a facile interpretation of the phrase, kind of like complaining that "Measure Twice Cut Once" would lead to selling illegally adulterated flour. A more steel-man interpretation of POSIWID--the way I think it's intended to be understood--would be:
"The practical outcomes of a system over the long-term reveal something important of the the true-preferences of the various interests which control that system, and these interests may be very different from the system's stated goals."
> The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure two-thirds of cancer patients... These are obviously false. The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure as many patients as possible, but curing cancer is hard, so they only manage about two-thirds.
I don't see the contradiction here. The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure as many patients as possible. "What it does" is cure as many patients as possible. The fact that as many patients as possible is currently (presumably) two-thirds is irrelevant. If major advancements in medicine or new types of cancer emerged which changed the percentage of people cured it wouldn't matter at all. "What it does" and "the purpose of the system" is still unchanged.
“If a system is maintained over an extended period and has observed behavioral traits that are consistent within that period, that is, in itself, strong evidence that those behavioral traits are consistent with the purpose for which the system is permitted to exist” is kind of a mouthful, though, and there is value in succinctness.
(Although there is another message, there, too: “the purpose of a system, insofar as it can be said to exist separate from what it actually does, has no weight in justifying the system’s existence or design”.)
Great read. I've always noticed that the type of argument invoked is often less telling than when and in which context you invoke that argument.
You can make a lot of claims and they can match to reality a lot - normally people think of evaluating things in terms of a strict "does this fit or does this not", but it's often the meta-style (why do you keep bringing up that argument in that context?) that's important, even if it's not "logically bulletproof".
Wow that post is bad. The author clearly never actually attempted to understand what POSWID actually means and where it is coming from. Perhaps, instead of looking at Twitter, they should have opened Wikipedia. Or, better yet, Stafford Beers books (though admittedly, he was a pretty atrocious writer).
The follow-up is slightly better. But still not very convincing, IMO. They get far too stuck on a literal interpretation. Of something that self-describes as a heuristic.
The phrase does not make more sense even if we go all the way back to Beers. I certainly don't feel alone in not understanding how he went from his (fair) observation that "[There's] no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do" to his more controversial conclusion: "The purpose of a system is what it does (aka POSIWID)".
Surely, there were many more sensible (but perhaps less quippy) stops between the two.
Being quippy is the point. That's how aphorisms work: creating a short, pithy distillation of a complex argument, that you can then use pars pro toto to make a point.
I certainly agree that POSWID is easily (and perhaps frequently) misused. But that doesn't invalidate it in general.
Despite the complete Archie Bunker energy in that post here is something interesting from the post:
"Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow."
with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.
That was in the cards since Hegseth's initial announcement, when he brandished the option for Anthropic to be put on the same level as China and Russia, i.e. the same level as State enemies of the US. Got to give it tho Anthropic's CEO, I had first though that he'd give in faster, looks like he's still clinging on.
Also see what happened to Joseph Nacchio in the early 2000s [1]:
> He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007[2] – charges his defense team claimed were U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001.
Unfortunately, I think the same thing is in the cards now for Anthropic's CEO, that is if he doesn't choose to play ball.
The part of Dario's response I found funniest was pointing out the inherent contradiction in the DoW threats. Somehow, they could both be a national security threat as well as a national security necessity. Not by doing something differently - at the same time, to the same people, in the same context.
They won’t be brandished as a supply chain risk because the supply chain members are good at lobbying and they like Claude.
As an example, Amazon is a defense contractor and uses Claude heavily internally for development. They are also major investors in Anthropic. Amazon would not want Claude to be banned from use on developing AWS services that may be cross sold to the government. Multiply this by every defense company that uses Claude (eg anduril and Palantir).
They could totally try and punish Anthropic executives of course. That seems likely.
I’d love to get the reaction if all the VC investors who “reluctantly” had to support Trump because Lina Kahn was just too meddlesome, and they had to support a candidate who would be hands off with big tech.
This shouldn't surprise anybody at this point. This is how Trump behaves on a daily basis. He thinks that he can direct the federal government to do literally anything he wants and operates on pure retribution.
So many people wrote think pieces about how Trump couldn't possibly be a fascist because fascism involves state takeover of corporate power. Hm...
I am honestly surprised he is being this nice given he could use the war powers act and eminent domain to just seize the company and conscript their employees. I am sure someone will say that is not legal but when has that stopped anyone.
What I don't get is why they really want it. I can't think of a worse platform in general to do anything with combat that is, anything in a data-center. I would take the Quake 3 Arena engine on a new ultra insane mode combined with a tiny self hosted model to detect humans, uniforms, vehicle make and model plus a simple Friend or Foe over all the big AI platforms any day. Add an optional feed from an encrypted meshtastic like network to sync nodes using pre-defined Ostiary like commands. Ultra-fast, light-weight on all resources, decentralized.
The enemy could neutralize all the big platforms in one day by simply activating a few dozen of the sleeper agents in the US or a couple High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) deployed by a few stratospheric balloons as China flew over every major military installation in the US. Adding to this having a network dependency to the big platforms from autonomous weapons is an extreme vulnerability. Any design that depends on a central command is a single point of success.
> I am sure someone will say that is not legal but when has that stopped anyone.
it has routinely stopped them as the courts have already struck down countless of nonsense by this administration, and they rely exactly on this bluster every time they try something else.
The issue is that even though courts work slower than a president with a smartphone eventually it will all get sorted out and they know this, which is why some people falling for this shock and awe behavior is so silly.
The issue is that even though courts work slower than a president
So ... not stopped the president. Make a move, eventually ruled naughty, shift to another move, ruled a no-no, take an alternate path, rinse repeat. How does one fix the courts or is it working as intended?
reply