@Banderoism@tofus0up@GOP__Ls Do you not understand the difference between using taxpayer funds for campaign ads vs donor funds? Also, I'm no Harris fan, but she clearly didn't do anything wrong as you're suggesting there, and the issue in that case was campaign not taxpayer funds: https://t.co/dK9zyLbl0j
@Alvak21@nathandeanDC Crypto is literally a bottom tier issue among the electorate:
https://t.co/IRcFdyvRul
And the only crypto priority people were already all in on Republicans.
@jnoisecat Not under this government. Trump appears to be more of an AI zealot than any of the people who actually work in the industry at this point. They might be greedy, but they're not Trump-level greedy. Even the neural implant guy (Musk) is more concerned about this stuff than Trump.
@prestonjbyrne "Clearly." Can you point me to your source here? I've heard alot of people say this who 1. Aren't able to point to anything concrete to back their theory up and 2. For some reason don't even think it's worth the effort to try. Very convenient.
@mylandros@JonAlesxander@bilalchughtai_@_amanda_long I mean, have you seen Trump's posts in the last week? And Vance's comments. Even if the motive is purely self-serving in terms of 1. Keeping the stock market afloat generally to preserve Trump's legacy and give Rs a chance in these midterms and 2. The Trump family's investments
@habibislop@LetUsDeAge@bilalchughtai_ Because "slowing down" is more politically feasible right now, and maybe won't solve the problem forever, but will give us time to figure out if there's a way to move forward in the long term in any way other than shutting it down.
@RepLuna There's no need to be defensive. You're on the right side of this issue, keep going and don't let the haters get to you. It's not that there's no positives that can come from AI. It's that the possible negatives clearly outweigh the positives.
@spencerpratt Simple, bad take. Worse people than Amodei could be in charge of the leading AI technology (for example Trump). Pulling the plug is insufficient, unless everyone else does the same (which they won't unless forced to by the government, or an agreement between governments).
@MonstrousRanco1@mattyglesias Exactly. If you actually think there's a problem here, you need to skip straight to #4, or at least try, until evidence emerges that that approach isn't working.
@mattyglesias Why not just skip straight to #4? China's current gov is a more rational actor--and less reckless--than ours and probably understands and are more worried about the risks of AI than us. That recent WeChat zero day hack will only have reinforced this view.
@johnarnold@Mikwillyj You know we figured out treaties related to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, right? There's no reason we can't do the same here. Also, the US is the more reckless seeming actor here, so China will be more inclined than us to want to come to some kind of arrangement.
Trump Pledges That If Voters Defeat Socialism In November, They Will Each Get An Equal Redistribution Of Wealth From The Government https://t.co/qe16k9ucsf
@OfficialJoelF Help me understand why it's a big deal if the pathway goes under the McCarthur vs. over. As long as it connects the two parts of the Baywalk together without having to wait at the light on 5th and Alton to cross, who cares? Am I missing something?
@BenjiBacker The argument that logging reduces fires is total BS.
Logging + monoculture replanting are the cause of fires, not the solution to them. https://t.co/ECR6vY5nPI
For example, the fires in France this summer were all on former bogs drained and planted as pine tree plantations.
It’s hard to explain and fathom the potential risks of AI designing and then building entirely new viruses
In this new work, scientists created brand new viruses using AI. They say it’s ok bc they “only infect bacteria”
Let’s be clear *IF* a new virus is released that could broadly destroy bacteria and IF it could spread well while doing so, the potential catastrophes to our ecosystems could be large.
Viruses don’t need to directly infect humans to potentially destroy humans…though of course the new work shows how relatively well and relatively easy it will be to create new human viruses.
The future is increasingly playing with fire.
https://t.co/WVYNGCC0Rt
@michaelmina_lab "AI will cure cancer," but it might also lead to new deadly viruses...great. status quo sounds nicer and nicer with each passing day. Did we need AI to invent mRNA vaccines, CRISPR, and the like? Don't think so
@thall419@ianbremmer Of course it was going through their heads, and their opponents'. Sports are extremely mental. Anyone who would ignore that has probably not played sports at any significant level. Trump and the USSF's intervention increased the pressure on the team, and made Belgium play angry.
@jessesingal Why didn't Paraguay's Almiron get his red card suspended until after the World Cup? What about England's Quansah? Will he get the Balogun treatment as well?
@TheStalwart 1. Plenty of people already have Peacock, so watching it there is free, vs. an extra $20/month for Fox One. 2. Spanish announcers are more expressive and emotional (minus Ray Hudson), which hypes you up even if you don't speak the language.