leicsmac

Unless serious measures are taken in 50 years time there will be a migration crisis that will make the present one look like a picnic, because over a billion people will have to move from places that will simply become uninhabitable due to lack of potable water (or an excess of it at the wrong time).

And if you think the US strongarming a tech company into removing AI safeguards is a reasonable move even as a response to that then I'm not sure what to say either. Like I said, should AI cause mayhem from a military standpoint (rather than just an economic one), then moves like this, and the people that insisted upon them, will be to blame.

The Chinese development of AI isn't in question. However, as much as the US would like to create a boogeyman here, their intent with it going forward is in question, rather than any way clear cut. But then that's one of the biggest problems with egocentric powermongers, I guess - they assume everyone else is the same as them in that regard, and that proceeds to make it everyone's problem.

Is there much suggestion at all that there is any "competition" at this time that requires the US government to act like this?

Sorry, I'll clarify/elaborate. The egocentric nationalists currently running the show in the US are leaning on Anthropic to remove safeguards from it's AI products in order to... well, be aggressively nationalistic with it and expand their own personal and tribal power (with the excuse "but what if the Chinese do it first?"). So, if said AI then turns round and causes mayhem, I think we can say that (some) humans had some responsibility in it happening.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3vlzzkqeo Anthropic has said it will not back down in a fight with the US Department of Defense (DoD) over how its artificial intelligence (AI) technology is used. The firm's chief executive Dario Amodei said on Thursday that his company would rather not work with the Pentagon than agree to uses of its tech that may "undermine, rather than defend, democratic values." His comments come two days after a meeting with US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth over demands that Anthropic accept "any lawful use" of its tools. It ended with a threat to remove Anthropic from the DoD's supply chain. "These threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request," Amodei said. At issue for Anthropic is the potential use of its AI tools like Claude for two purposes: "Mass domestic surveillance" and "Fully autonomous weapons." Amodei said "such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now." Oh, look. The egocentric nationalists want to let AI off the chain for the sake of their own personal and tribal power. Never let it be said that (some) humans didn't actively trigger their own downfall.

No, it's everyone. All "tribes" have that in their history, and sometimes that makes me wonder why exactly they're so proud of it. But in any case, this in no way invalidates the point made that our species, as a whole, has to change its mentality about such things or it will not meet the challenges ahead. And that won't end well.

A very logical response at the present time. But, again, see above.

You're right in that there's far too many people who haven't gotten over the tribal mindset and the feeling of insularity (and sometimes superiority) that they have because of it. That's why a borderless world (or even one with simply less) wouldn't work at the present time. What a lot of folks seem to overlook, however, is that same mindset is totally incompatible with the challenges our species faces in the future, and that incompatibility will be punished, as it has with a lot of other species in the past. Darwin had it right; adapt, or die. Some people aren't arguing for greater cooperation and openness and a change in mentality because "it's the right thing to do". They're arguing for it because it's the only possible way forward that might (just might) not end up in catastrophe for all of us, and a lot of other species besides. I can understand the need for marking and bordering of territory at both the individual and the species level. However, everything in between... see above.

They are still for those latter two things, it would seem. And, lest we forget, the party that finished second is for neither, to the detriment of us all.

If it's the issue I think you're referring to, then a more unstable world will make that issue a lot worse and the UK will be one of many places to feel the brunt. And yes, we live in interesting times. And, as has been said before, there's a reason that's often known as a curse rather than a benediction. Yes, funny that.

Very true. There could be a civil insurgency in the US, a succession crisis in Russia and China continuing to position themselves to pick up the pieces by that time, for instance.

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, however.

Being outdone by women tends to rather bruise the egos of such people, yes. Take a look at their counterparts across the pond for more examples there. And this is the victory of a white woman. Imagine the reaction if a POC woman had won instead...

I believe this one falls under the "some times in practice" heading

And this result has shown that at least at a local level, some people are ready to entertain the idea of that.

At this point, I would be most interested in hearing from any contributors to the US Election thread back in 2024 who said that people were "overreacting" and Trump "wouldn't be that bad", and see if they feel the same way after all that's happened so far.

And yet, the kind of politicians the Fail backs almost always seem to be the ones in other papers because they've been caught up in a scandal involving one or both of those two areas of business. The hypocrisy is hilarious.

I think it has to be dispassionate because every other option tried is worse, but I know what you mean here.

It's very true that the justice systems that civilisation has built and refined tend not to align with the individual sense of "natural justice" that existed before it. And I'm guessing that's most likely because such "natural justice" tended (and tends) to have rather more blood and intestines being spilled over the floor than today's civilisation is really comfortable with. The idea of natural justice tends to sound good in principle, and some times in practice too. But the other times... not so much.

Yep, and any washout puts WI through. Don't discount the Kiwis.

26 off a 10 ball over

Was always going to end up as a virtual knockout match against the Windies for India. Hopefully WI can still be ahead on NRR after this one so any no result would send them through.

The Saffers always have that semi final or final choke in them. NZ have looked very solid though. Lots of possible winners imo.

If one believes the "throwing a stone" account is actually what happened anyway. And yes, disproportionate retribution has been a massive issue here, and sadly not a new one in the field is such conflicts.