4 ms·

Sums it up: “Vance just dumped water all over that. [It] was like, ‘Yeah, that’s cute. But guess what? You know you’re actually not the ones who are making the

Sums it up: “Vance just dumped water all over that. [It] was like, ‘Yeah, that’s cute. But guess what? You know you’re actually not the ones who are making the calls here. It’s us,’” said McBride.

consp 2y ago
The bullies are in charge. Prepare to get beaten to the curb and your lunch money stolen.
- swarnie 2y ago
  It been that way for... 300 years? Those with the biggest economies and/or most guns has changed a few times but the behaviours haven't and probably never will.
  - gyomu 2y ago
    If you’re making sweeping statements like that, why the arbitrary distinction at 300 years? What happened then? Why not say “since the dawn of humanity”?
    - lucky1759 2y ago
      It's not some arbitrary distinction from 300 years ago, it's something called "the Enlightenment".
      - gyomu 2y ago
        The bullies with most guns and biggest economies have been in charge since the Enlightenment? Huh?
    - kabouseng 2y ago
      Probably referring to the period that pax Britannia and pax Americana have been the global hegemon.
    - swarnie 2y ago
      I was keeping it simple for the majority.
  - computerthings 2y ago
    That's what Europeans thought for centuries, until Germany overdid it. Then we had new ideas, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      The declaration of human rights, like a lot of other laws, declarations and similar pieces of paper signed by politicians, have zero value without the corresponding enforcement, and are often just there for optics so that taxpayers feel like their elected leaders are making good use of their money and are on the side of good. And the extent of which you can do global enforcement (which is often biased and selective) is limited by the reach of your economic and military power. Which is why the US outspends the rest of the world military powers combined and how the US and their troops have waged ilegal wars and committed numerous crimes abroad and gotten away with it despite pieces of papers saying what they're doing is bad, but their reaction was always "what are you gonna do about it?". See how many atrocities have happened under the watch of the UN. Laws aren't real, it's the enforcement that is real. Which is why the bullies get to define the laws that everyone else has to follow because they have the monopoly on enforcement.
      - computerthings 2y ago
        The same is true for the HN comment I replied to, which was basically going *shrug*, but also without any army to enforce that. So I pointed out that some people went beyond just shrugging, because it could not go on like this; and here is what they wrote. Just reading these things does a person good, and to stand up for these things you first have to know them.
      - pjc50 2y ago
        > Laws aren't real, it's the enforcement that is real Well, yes. This is why people have been paying a lot of attention to what exactly "rule of law" means in the US, and what was just norms that can be discarded.
- Xelbair 2y ago
  i mean.. you need power to enforce your values. and UK hasn't been in power for a long time. "If you are not capable of violence, you are not peaceful. You are harmless" Unless you can stand on equal field - either by alliance, or by your own power - you aren't a negotiating partner, and i say that as European.
  - wobfan 2y ago
    > "If you are not capable of violence, you are not peaceful. You are harmless" this is exactly the value that caused so much war and death all over the world, for decades and thousands of years. still, even in 2025, it's being followed. are we doomed, chat?
    - pjc50 2y ago
      US sending clear signals to countries that they should start thinking about their own nuclear proliferation, even if that means treaty-breaking.
    - GlacierFox 2y ago
      The emphasis is the word capable here. I think there's a difference between a country using their capability of violence to actually be violent and a one with the tangible capability using it for peace.
    - jddj 2y ago
      There are peaceful strategies that are temporarily stable in the face of actors who capitalise on peaceful actors to take their resources, but they usually (always?) take the form of quickly moving on when an aggressor arrives. Eg. birds abandoning rather than defending a perch when another approaches. We're typically not happy to do that, though you can see it happening in some parts of the world right now. Some kind of enlightened state where violent competition for resources (incl. status & power) no longer makes sense is imaginable, but seems a long way off.
      - Yoric 2y ago
        Just to clarify, who's the aggressor in what you write? The US?
- gardenhedge 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ahiknsr 2y ago
    [dead]
- xyzal 2y ago
  I think the saddest fact about it is that not even the US state weilds the power. It is some sociopathic bussinessmen.
  - ta1243 2y ago
    Businessmen have been far more powerful than states for at least the last 20 years
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      Generally I can't help but see 'more powerful than the government' claims forever poisoned from their shallow use in the context of cryptography. Where it was used in a rhetorical tantrum throwing response to their power refuse to do the impossible like make an encryption backdoor 'only for good guys' and have the sheer temerity to stand against arbitrary exercises of authority by using the courts to check them only to their actual power. If actual 'more powerful than the states' occurs they have nobody to blame but themselves for crying wolf.
- gardenhedge 2y ago
  My response to "the bullies are in charge" has been downvoted and flagged yet what I am responding to remains up. It's a different opinion on the same topic started by GP. Either both should stay or both should go.
Dalewyn 2y ago
I love the retelling of "I don't really care, Margaret." here. But politics aside, this also points to something I've said numerous times here before: In order to write the rulebook you need to be a creator. Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules. As far as "AI" is concerned, the creators are squarely the United States and presumably China. The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around. If you want to be the rulemaker, be a creator; not a litigator.
- consp 2y ago
  Sure you can. Outright ban it. Or do what china does, copy it and say the rules do not matter.
- mvc 2y ago
  > Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules Create things? Or destroy them? Seems in reality, the most powerful nations are the ones who have acquired the greatest potential to destroy things. Creation is worthless if the dude next door is prepared to burn your house down because you look different to him.
- cowboylowrez 2y ago
  if your both the creator and rulemaker then this is the magic combo to a peaceful and beneficial society for the entire planet! or maybe not.
- gardenhedge 2y ago
  What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_AI?
- piltdownman 2y ago
  > The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around Exactly what I'd expect someone from a country where the economy is favoured over the society to say - particularly in the context of consumer protection. You want access to a trade union of consumers? You play by the rules of that Union. American exceptionalism doesn't negate that. A large technical moat does. But DeepSeek has jumped in and revealed how shallow that moat really is for AI at this neonatal stage.
enugu 2y ago
AI doesn't look it will be restricted to one country. A breakthrough becomes common place in a matter of years. So that paraphrase of Vance's remarks, if accurate, would mean that he is wrong. The danger of something like AI+drones (or less imminent, AI+bioengineering) can lead to a severe degradation of security, like after the invention of nuclear weapons. A degradation in security, which requires collective action. Even worse, chaos could be caused by small groups weaponizing the technology against high profile targets. If anything, the larger nations might be much more forceful about AI regulation than the above summit by demanding an NPT style treaty where only a select club has access to the technology in exchange for other nations having access to the applications of AI from servers hosted by the club.
- logicchains 2y ago
  >The danger of something like AI+drones (or less imminent, AI+bioengineering) can lead to a severe degradation of security For smaller countries nukes represented an increase in security, not a degradation. North Korea probably wouldn't still be independent today if it didn't have nukes, and Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes. Restricting access to nukes is only in the interest of big countries that want to bully small countries around, because nukes level the playing field. The same applies to AI.
  - enugu 2y ago
    The comment was not speaking in favour of restrictionism, (I don't support it) but what strategy the more powerful states will adopt. Regarding an increase in security with nukes, what you say applies for exceptions against a general non-nuclear background. Without restrictions, every small country could have a weapon, with a danger of escalation behind every conflict, authoritatrians using a nuclear option as a protection against a revolt etc. The likelihood of nuclear war would be much more(even with the current situation, there have been close shaves)
  - idunnoman1222 2y ago
    Drones have AI you can buy them on AliExpress express what is your point?
mk89 2y ago
I see it differently. They need to dismantle bureaucracy to accelerate, NOT add new international agreements etc that would slow them down. Once they become leaders, they will come up with such agreements to impose their "model" and way to do things. Right now they need to accelerate and not get stuck.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

consp 2y ago

The bullies are in charge. Prepare to get beaten to the curb and your lunch money stolen.

swarnie 2y ago
It been that way for... 300 years? Those with the biggest economies and/or most guns has changed a few times but the behaviours haven't and probably never will.
- gyomu 2y ago
  If you’re making sweeping statements like that, why the arbitrary distinction at 300 years? What happened then? Why not say “since the dawn of humanity”?
  - lucky1759 2y ago
    It's not some arbitrary distinction from 300 years ago, it's something called "the Enlightenment".
    - gyomu 2y ago
      The bullies with most guns and biggest economies have been in charge since the Enlightenment? Huh?
  - kabouseng 2y ago
    Probably referring to the period that pax Britannia and pax Americana have been the global hegemon.
  - swarnie 2y ago
    I was keeping it simple for the majority.
- computerthings 2y ago
  That's what Europeans thought for centuries, until Germany overdid it. Then we had new ideas, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    The declaration of human rights, like a lot of other laws, declarations and similar pieces of paper signed by politicians, have zero value without the corresponding enforcement, and are often just there for optics so that taxpayers feel like their elected leaders are making good use of their money and are on the side of good. And the extent of which you can do global enforcement (which is often biased and selective) is limited by the reach of your economic and military power. Which is why the US outspends the rest of the world military powers combined and how the US and their troops have waged ilegal wars and committed numerous crimes abroad and gotten away with it despite pieces of papers saying what they're doing is bad, but their reaction was always "what are you gonna do about it?". See how many atrocities have happened under the watch of the UN. Laws aren't real, it's the enforcement that is real. Which is why the bullies get to define the laws that everyone else has to follow because they have the monopoly on enforcement.
    - computerthings 2y ago
      The same is true for the HN comment I replied to, which was basically going *shrug*, but also without any army to enforce that. So I pointed out that some people went beyond just shrugging, because it could not go on like this; and here is what they wrote. Just reading these things does a person good, and to stand up for these things you first have to know them.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      > Laws aren't real, it's the enforcement that is real Well, yes. This is why people have been paying a lot of attention to what exactly "rule of law" means in the US, and what was just norms that can be discarded.
Xelbair 2y ago
i mean.. you need power to enforce your values. and UK hasn't been in power for a long time. "If you are not capable of violence, you are not peaceful. You are harmless" Unless you can stand on equal field - either by alliance, or by your own power - you aren't a negotiating partner, and i say that as European.
- wobfan 2y ago
  > "If you are not capable of violence, you are not peaceful. You are harmless" this is exactly the value that caused so much war and death all over the world, for decades and thousands of years. still, even in 2025, it's being followed. are we doomed, chat?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    US sending clear signals to countries that they should start thinking about their own nuclear proliferation, even if that means treaty-breaking.
  - GlacierFox 2y ago
    The emphasis is the word capable here. I think there's a difference between a country using their capability of violence to actually be violent and a one with the tangible capability using it for peace.
  - jddj 2y ago
    There are peaceful strategies that are temporarily stable in the face of actors who capitalise on peaceful actors to take their resources, but they usually (always?) take the form of quickly moving on when an aggressor arrives. Eg. birds abandoning rather than defending a perch when another approaches. We're typically not happy to do that, though you can see it happening in some parts of the world right now. Some kind of enlightened state where violent competition for resources (incl. status & power) no longer makes sense is imaginable, but seems a long way off.
    - Yoric 2y ago
      Just to clarify, who's the aggressor in what you write? The US?
gardenhedge 2y ago
[flagged]
- ahiknsr 2y ago
  [dead]
xyzal 2y ago
I think the saddest fact about it is that not even the US state weilds the power. It is some sociopathic bussinessmen.
- ta1243 2y ago
  Businessmen have been far more powerful than states for at least the last 20 years
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    Generally I can't help but see 'more powerful than the government' claims forever poisoned from their shallow use in the context of cryptography. Where it was used in a rhetorical tantrum throwing response to their power refuse to do the impossible like make an encryption backdoor 'only for good guys' and have the sheer temerity to stand against arbitrary exercises of authority by using the courts to check them only to their actual power. If actual 'more powerful than the states' occurs they have nobody to blame but themselves for crying wolf.
gardenhedge 2y ago
My response to "the bullies are in charge" has been downvoted and flagged yet what I am responding to remains up. It's a different opinion on the same topic started by GP. Either both should stay or both should go.

Dalewyn 2y ago

I love the retelling of "I don't really care, Margaret." here. But politics aside, this also points to something I've said numerous times here before: In order to write the rulebook you need to be a creator. Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules. As far as "AI" is concerned, the creators are squarely the United States and presumably China. The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around. If you want to be the rulemaker, be a creator; not a litigator.

consp 2y ago
Sure you can. Outright ban it. Or do what china does, copy it and say the rules do not matter.
mvc 2y ago
> Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules Create things? Or destroy them? Seems in reality, the most powerful nations are the ones who have acquired the greatest potential to destroy things. Creation is worthless if the dude next door is prepared to burn your house down because you look different to him.
cowboylowrez 2y ago
if your both the creator and rulemaker then this is the magic combo to a peaceful and beneficial society for the entire planet! or maybe not.
gardenhedge 2y ago
What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_AI?
piltdownman 2y ago
> The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around Exactly what I'd expect someone from a country where the economy is favoured over the society to say - particularly in the context of consumer protection. You want access to a trade union of consumers? You play by the rules of that Union. American exceptionalism doesn't negate that. A large technical moat does. But DeepSeek has jumped in and revealed how shallow that moat really is for AI at this neonatal stage.

enugu 2y ago

AI doesn't look it will be restricted to one country. A breakthrough becomes common place in a matter of years. So that paraphrase of Vance's remarks, if accurate, would mean that he is wrong. The danger of something like AI+drones (or less imminent, AI+bioengineering) can lead to a severe degradation of security, like after the invention of nuclear weapons. A degradation in security, which requires collective action. Even worse, chaos could be caused by small groups weaponizing the technology against high profile targets. If anything, the larger nations might be much more forceful about AI regulation than the above summit by demanding an NPT style treaty where only a select club has access to the technology in exchange for other nations having access to the applications of AI from servers hosted by the club.

logicchains 2y ago
>The danger of something like AI+drones (or less imminent, AI+bioengineering) can lead to a severe degradation of security For smaller countries nukes represented an increase in security, not a degradation. North Korea probably wouldn't still be independent today if it didn't have nukes, and Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes. Restricting access to nukes is only in the interest of big countries that want to bully small countries around, because nukes level the playing field. The same applies to AI.
- enugu 2y ago
  The comment was not speaking in favour of restrictionism, (I don't support it) but what strategy the more powerful states will adopt. Regarding an increase in security with nukes, what you say applies for exceptions against a general non-nuclear background. Without restrictions, every small country could have a weapon, with a danger of escalation behind every conflict, authoritatrians using a nuclear option as a protection against a revolt etc. The likelihood of nuclear war would be much more(even with the current situation, there have been close shaves)
- idunnoman1222 2y ago
  Drones have AI you can buy them on AliExpress express what is your point?

mk89 2y ago

I see it differently. They need to dismantle bureaucracy to accelerate, NOT add new international agreements etc that would slow them down. Once they become leaders, they will come up with such agreements to impose their "model" and way to do things. Right now they need to accelerate and not get stuck.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]