There you have it. Anthropic's CEO said it: The murder of more than 100 schoolgirls in Minab targeted by Anthropic's CLAUDE "is a use case that doesn't even violate our red lines." Time to rise up against these technofeudal war criminals.
Everyone always talking about “talent density” in Silicon Valley when we really should be talking about how 80% of pretzels in America come from a small region of Pennsylvania
The Art Directors Guild released a statement condemning Martin Scorsese’s recent partnership with AI startup Black Forest Labs.
The guild accused one of Hollywood’s most celebrated directors of “turning his back on the human artists who throughout his career have helped him create his most memorable works.”
https://t.co/FLkWMV51Ok
In theaters now!
Go this weekend.
If you haven't- what are you doing?
92% Rotten Tomatoes
75% Rotten Tomatoes audience score
3.8 Letterboxd
b cinema score (given by audience)
You have to see this on a big screen.
May be gone from theaters this week if you don't.
These rich assholes have been holding up real physical bike lane protection because they want to unload their cars once a week in the richest sections of the city.
They are selfish enough to put the death of a doctor behind their priorities to park their cars. Evil
Our highest and most urgent national priority should be AI safeguards. The risks of AI weapons, pathogens, mass unemployment, surveillance, and even extinction must not continue to be largely ignored.
AI is built on humanity’s collective knowledge.
The wealth it generates must benefit humanity — not just Elon Musk, Sam Altman and other AI oligarchs.
That’s why I’ll be introducing the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act — to give the public a direct ownership stake.
Need my Philadelphia progressives to get on Zohrans level. Embrace yimby and enforcement of quality of life issues and the gates of the city will be yours for the taking.
Here is a view, occasioned by the papal encyclical, that I'm throwing out as a rough thought because it could be wrong. The default of papal rhetoric is to speak about global issues in terms of structures and systems rather than specific leaders or nation-states. In the new encyclical's call to gentle and restrain A.I., e.g., the consistent idea is always that we need "clear criteria and effective oversight" by some kind of neutral transnational authority, details TBD.
There are reasons for this rhetorical mode beyond the Church's longstanding internationalist disposition: A rhetoric of structures and systems avoids a risky personalization of politics, where you seem to be "calling out" individual governments or actors. But it also comes with the risk of sounding utopian and irrelevant under 21st century conditions, where vis-a-vis Artificial Intelligence, in particular, a really narrow set of actors -- the governments of China and America, the leaders of the frontier companies -- are carrying almost all the decisionmaking weight.
It seems like in this environment we are a bit closer to a medieval model where the Church is arguably the only transnational organization of great moment (certainly Pope Leo has demonstrated that many people are *very* interested in what Rome has to say about A.I. whereas no one would care if the UN dropped a big document on the subject), and the Vatican is in the position of arguing with and cajoling a set of princes, corporate and dictatorial and democratically elected, whose personal choices are likely to decide the direction that this tech takes. (As in, for instance, the ongoing argument inside the Trump White House about its un-issued A.I. executive order.)
I wonder if papal rhetoric might usefully adapt to this reality -- not by calling out Trump or Xi or Sam Altman or Dario Amodei by name, or not necessarily, but by offering more explicit advice to today's leaders and their advisers about their unique power, the moral obligations that come with it, and the judgment of God that awaits if they get things badly wrong. You can draw some of that out of Vatican documents right now, but the balance always tilts toward hypothetical structural solutions. I think where we are, and where we might be going -- for instance, toward choices about A.I. made under conditions of greater acceleration and potential crisis -- there is a case for treating the actual deciders as the crucial actors rather than always imagining an entirely different world.
When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own. Instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good.
As evidenced by the unbridled promotion and implementation of technology at the expense of human dignity, we are truly experiencing an eclipse of the sense of what it means to be human. It is imperative to recover an understanding of the true meaning and grandeur of humanity as intended by God. It is in this sense that the challenge we currently face is not technological, but anthropological, and it is my hope that the Encyclical Letter to be published within a few days will contribute to answering this challenge.