4 ms·

So like: 1. "This person has a specific professional history" 2. ??? 3. "This is a willful, calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth

So like: 1. "This person has a specific professional history" 2. ??? 3. "This is a willful, calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth" I think we need to be a little more explicit in step 2.

K0balt 2y ago
I think there is a significant lack of explanation in his jump to step 2, but I think this is where his domain experience is being applied. The underwear -gnomeish jump here I think is: the “only” reasonable explanation for this (overtly terrible from an optics perspective) selection is that this is the NSA getting their hooks deeply into openAI in the same way they did with Google, which can now be reasonably considered a commercial extension or at least a close partner of the NSA. Arguably, googles business model is based on violating the privacy of every person on earth to the maximum extent that they can get away with, so the somewhat hyperbolic statement seems less extreme in that context. But, that is just my interpretation, I’m not in his head, so I could definitely be wrong. Still, this is my best estimate of the situation.
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  That's not a reasonable explanation though, it's just garden variety FUD. It doesn't take "domain expertise" to make up cartoon villain plots.
  - K0balt 2y ago
    Unfortunately we live in a world where in effect, many companies have become, for all practical purposes, cartoon villains. So , lamentably, cartoon villain plots are now reasonably anticipated outcomes. The only thing missing is the motive of harm, which is handily replaced by the motive of profit with indifference to harm. My hypothesis is that in his time with the NSA, Snowden witnessed the cartoon-villainy that he called out, and that because of that experience, he identifies this recent event (of appointing an ex-NSA military officer to guide OAI) as a highly probable symptom of further villainy, this time is something arguably more expansive and impactful than FAANG. It seems to me a rather reasonable conclusion , and framing it in sensational terms as the most reasonable approach to “sound the alarm “- a role that, for better or for worse, Snowden has taken. Where there is smoke, there is fire is still an extremely useful adage, despite the overt lack of scientific rigor in its application. This is not what I had in mind when I hoped I would live in interesting times.
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      You keep saying "reasonable" to mean things which are literally not derived from reasoning.

K0balt 2y ago

I think there is a significant lack of explanation in his jump to step 2, but I think this is where his domain experience is being applied. The underwear -gnomeish jump here I think is: the “only” reasonable explanation for this (overtly terrible from an optics perspective) selection is that this is the NSA getting their hooks deeply into openAI in the same way they did with Google, which can now be reasonably considered a commercial extension or at least a close partner of the NSA. Arguably, googles business model is based on violating the privacy of every person on earth to the maximum extent that they can get away with, so the somewhat hyperbolic statement seems less extreme in that context. But, that is just my interpretation, I’m not in his head, so I could definitely be wrong. Still, this is my best estimate of the situation.

dialup_sounds 2y ago
That's not a reasonable explanation though, it's just garden variety FUD. It doesn't take "domain expertise" to make up cartoon villain plots.
- K0balt 2y ago
  Unfortunately we live in a world where in effect, many companies have become, for all practical purposes, cartoon villains. So , lamentably, cartoon villain plots are now reasonably anticipated outcomes. The only thing missing is the motive of harm, which is handily replaced by the motive of profit with indifference to harm. My hypothesis is that in his time with the NSA, Snowden witnessed the cartoon-villainy that he called out, and that because of that experience, he identifies this recent event (of appointing an ex-NSA military officer to guide OAI) as a highly probable symptom of further villainy, this time is something arguably more expansive and impactful than FAANG. It seems to me a rather reasonable conclusion , and framing it in sensational terms as the most reasonable approach to “sound the alarm “- a role that, for better or for worse, Snowden has taken. Where there is smoke, there is fire is still an extremely useful adage, despite the overt lack of scientific rigor in its application. This is not what I had in mind when I hoped I would live in interesting times.
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    You keep saying "reasonable" to mean things which are literally not derived from reasoning.