3 ms·

I just think that it's dodging the question in this case. It's true that the US government is run by crooks who'd all be serving prison sentences in a just worl

I just think that it's dodging the question in this case. It's true that the US government is run by crooks who'd all be serving prison sentences in a just world, and that they'd certainly do whatever Anthropic wants in exchange for a sufficiently large bribe. But the US government also serves a number of important roles in American society that we can't simply turn off and come back to in 2029.

pdimitar 5mo ago
Your last sentence sounds reasonable. Can you give examples?
- SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
  I think most people would agree, for example, that the FTC should continue going after fraudsters (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-files-contempt-motion-against-amare-global-three-individuals-over-unsubstantiated-health-claims https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/...) and the FBI should continue prosecuting arsonists (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/former-turkey-leg-hut-owner-admits-role-arson-hire-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/former-turkey-leg-hut-o...), even if both agencies are run by partisan hacks right now.
estearum 5mo ago
It's not dodging the question. GP's comment says that one should consider the possibility. Essentially that we should follow what several federal courts have been doing and cease offering the government the "presumption of regularity" in its conduct. People are referencing David Sacks as an impartial government authority about 2 weeks after he went on a tirade against Bernie Sanders for some type of nationalization of AI, and then went completely radio silent when his own boss suggested the same thing a week later. There is no political appointee in our government – not one – who can be afforded the presumption of regularity.
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
  One should consider the possibility, but it doesn’t seem to me that the comments are full of people who haven’t. I think David Sacks is a hypocritical Trumpist, valuing his own pocketbook above all else and seeing his political connections as key to maintaining it. His perspective is valuable not because it’s impartial, but because it illustrates how hypocritical Trumpists see this very important issue with which we’re faced.

pdimitar 5mo ago

Your last sentence sounds reasonable. Can you give examples?

SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
I think most people would agree, for example, that the FTC should continue going after fraudsters (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-files-contempt-motion-against-amare-global-three-individuals-over-unsubstantiated-health-claims https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/...) and the FBI should continue prosecuting arsonists (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/former-turkey-leg-hut-owner-admits-role-arson-hire-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/former-turkey-leg-hut-o...), even if both agencies are run by partisan hacks right now.

estearum 5mo ago

It's not dodging the question. GP's comment says that one should consider the possibility. Essentially that we should follow what several federal courts have been doing and cease offering the government the "presumption of regularity" in its conduct. People are referencing David Sacks as an impartial government authority about 2 weeks after he went on a tirade against Bernie Sanders for some type of nationalization of AI, and then went completely radio silent when his own boss suggested the same thing a week later. There is no political appointee in our government – not one – who can be afforded the presumption of regularity.

SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
One should consider the possibility, but it doesn’t seem to me that the comments are full of people who haven’t. I think David Sacks is a hypocritical Trumpist, valuing his own pocketbook above all else and seeing his political connections as key to maintaining it. His perspective is valuable not because it’s impartial, but because it illustrates how hypocritical Trumpists see this very important issue with which we’re faced.