That’s ridiculous, of course it counts as AI. It’s not conscious, and it’s not very intelligent, but it has some intelligence by any reasonable definition.
That’s ridiculous, of course it counts as AI. It’s not conscious, and it’s not very intelligent, but it has some intelligence by any reasonable definition.
Extending the ending of the war by a year would be far worse.
I don’t think that follows at all actually. Every weapon has a balance of harm against benefit, if you outlaw cluster bombs why not mines? Why not grenades, or regular artillery? The reason is because the defensive value outweighs the potential harm. I think it’s fairly clear that this is the case for cluster bombs too, while it is not for mustard gas.
The US keeps them because the alternative would cost significant capability. That would need to be made up for with other weapons. Politics and appearance costs impact things too, and for nations that could never stand a chance against russia/China without US help there is a much stronger argument for earning points by outlawing them.
The greatest risk to Ukrainian children is the Russian invasion, and the odds of Ukraine protecting them from that are far greater given these new munitions.
The change in the conversation about the importance of alignment this year has been remarkable. Last year had me feeling pretty cynical, but I am starting to feel legitimate hope again.
Sure, but should legality be based on artistic effort? (Not asking you directly, just open to anyone who thinks what SD, etc. do should be illegal.)
I agree with you, but this is a really bad counterargument to what they said. Even widely agreed politeness conventions to a degree ‘compel’ speech, so the debate is really around what speech is acceptable for society to encourage/suppress, rather than whether cultural changes are changing what people are compelled to say. Also, I don’t think they said anything that suggested they are more concerned by that than hateful violence?
Get that thing I Sencha?