Awfully convenient isn't it? To invent a whole class of arguments that by definition can't be falsified. You can argue for basically anything if you then tack on the excuse of "Well the world would have ended already if it came true, so by definition I won't have evidence for it"
The anthropic principle isn't providing evidence for the argument, nor is it a universal counterargument. It's just stating that the specific counterargument "well, the world has never ended before" doesn't work.
Its not a counterargument to basically anything, except as to avoid having to deal with actual evidence.
It is an argument that seems almost tailor made to have to ignore mountains of evidence against you.
In any other contexts the supposed "rationalists" would be fully in agreement that having evidence matters, and that not having any works against you.
So, in order to fight against this severe issue with their arguments, they have to invent a reason as for why the entire concept of evidence itself doesn't apply to them and they get to ignore normal evidentiary requirements.
Evidence is critically important. There is no evidence against, and plenty of evidence for. The point of the anthropic counterargument is merely that "it's never happened before" is not evidence against.
> "humanity can't be destroyed by anything, because I said so"
No, the argument is instead that the person claiming that humanity is going to be destroyed is making a fairly extraordinary claim and that requires fairly extraordinary evidence.
Or, in other words, we have tons of evidence already as for why the world ended is a fairly far out there prediction, given all the crazy people making these predictions keep turning out to be wrong.
So, you can make your extraordinary claim if you want, but really the burden is entirely on you to prove your extraordinary claim, and everyone else is free to remain on the default and completely normal end of the prediction spectrum, of believing that the world isn't going to end.
And when people do tricks like this, they are running away from the fact that they are making a wild completely out-there prediction, and hiding behind that by trying to come up with reasons as for why evidence doesn't matter and actually the burden of proof is shifted to those who have the default and boring prediction of the world not ending.
The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place.
Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemployment prediction isn't happening yet.
You should probably look closer at unemployment numbers in IT vs other spaces. Gains elsewhere are making up for IT losses, but it's a safe bet the people losing their tech jobs aren't career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles in large numbers.
> but it's a safe bet the people losing their tech jobs aren't career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles
That is because they can allow themselves to do nothing (for some time). Tech was a very high‑paying type of jobs, so workers could afford not to move into lower‑paid sectors, living on the savings they had accumulated beforehand.
In a couple of years market will correct tech-salaries and people will have spent their savings and then there will be your career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles in large numbers.
Yes, there are many parts of those things that some people want to be automated. I and many others are able to execute on our creative vision much fasters and more effectively thanks to automation of that work.
Personally I find it more difficult now to execute my creative vision compared to years ago with a little less tech. I think there's an optimal point to automation that is easily reached and after that the benefit from automation actually goes away. People just don't like to acknowledge that because it goes against what they're doing and that creates unpleasant cognitive dissonance.
That's not really the point of technology at all. It was at one point perhaps with simple tools, but now it's more like "find a more efficient way to replace work in the short-term to get an advantage over others". The goal of our development has ceased to be improving life. Now it's just surviving in the market.
People don't use technology to free up their time any more. They use it because technology keeps making life more complicated and tiresome and new tech is a short-term amelioration to that until that too increases the complexity of life some more.
You are looking at this all wrong. Give him the tools now and watch him be a better game dev today than a professional engineer from 4 years ago. He can work on his dreams as of this exact moment.
Yeah, the basic alliance is that anyone who wants to harm the USA nominally is ok with working together regardless of contradicting underlying ideology.
That why you'll see russia, iranian, marxist, and anarchist supporters/ideologies all using the same talking points.
Far leftists are quite open about how they think the USA is the evil empire and that Russian, China, Iran, ect are the "multipolar" world that they support.
You must be thinking of progressives who merely want free healthcare. Sure, an average bernie fan who wants some more government programs doesn't want the USA to fail. Instead, I am talking about the campists, the far lefties, or the "tankies" that they are sometimes called.
Supporting actual attacks on shipping lanes, or supporting the russian war, or attacks done by designated terrorist organizations is what I am referring to that some of the hard leftists support.
Yes, those things harm the USA, to explicitly be doing things like supporting the russian war on our allies.
> you're saying the far-right and far-left terrorist orgs will support each other?
I am saying that far left people put out support for what are arguably far right, religious extremist groups yes.
The labels of left and right get blurred, also. The people are who are right and support russia's invasion of ukraine, for example, often use very similar rhetoric to what supposedly far left people also use.
Its very similar talking points. Very similar arguments. The only main difference is that the far right will say they think jews control the world, whereas the far left will make the same exact argument about "zionists" instead.
But often time the exact argument, word for work will be the same, with only a single word replaced. Even stuff like "ZOG", which used to be vocabulary only used by neonazis is now being used by all sorts of people.
> But also, there's no organization called antifa, and no antifa members
Left wing extremist groups absolutely exist. The fact that they don't go around wearing matching uniforms with the letters ANTIFA on them doesn't change that.
Your demand for an exact membership list is simply not how extremist organizations work. Terroristic groups have always been fairly amorphous.
Are you going around planning terrorist attacks, vigilante violence, sabotaging critical infrastructure in groups or consistently materially supporting those who do? If so then yes.
If you aren't doing anything even close to this then no you wouldn't be.
You're missing the distinction between individual action (however abhorrent) and an actual terrorist organization. Organizations fund, cultivate, and organize attacks, as opposed to lone wolf terrorists, and therefore are much greater threats.
Timothy Mcveigh (and Terry Nichols) weren't members of a terrorist organization, but they were terrorists. Meanwhile, the ku klux klan has actual initiations, membership, and organizational structure. As do Isis and al qaida.
Yes you are you left out the rest of the sentence:
> … and an actual terrorist organization.
A group is not “an actual terrorist organization”. You’re trying to say all groups committing a crime against the government are actual terrorists organizations, and they all belong to the same organization, Antifa. That’s not the case. If that’s the case then MAGA is also a terrorist organization — at least they have a clear leader.
> You’re trying to say all groups committing a crime against the government are actual terrorists organizations
No, I only said that the ones that are committing terrorist attacks, or similarly serious vigilante violence or sabotaging critical infrastructure in groups are.
Mere "crimes" aren't the same as targeting a powerplant for example.
They said Good and Pretti were domestic terrorists, they were summarily executed, so not really the line you think you're drawing. NSPM-7 makes "politically motivated trespass and civil disobedience" a terrorist act. So it's not like all you have to do to avoid being labelled a terrorist is to just not blow up a power plant. Helping someone ICE knocked down during a protest is enough.
> so not really the line you think you're drawing.
It actually is a pretty good line. I am sure there are some edge cases, but the vast majority of designated terrorist organizations did more than enough to deserve being put on that list.
Yes, I am sure there is "Insert random one off exceptions here" or grey areas, but they would almost certainly win their court cases through the legal system, most of the time the world is pretty good at figuring out who the terrorists are.
Additionally, no, neither Good and Pretti were ever charged with terrorism. You can have your opinions on unfortunate incidents of use of force or officer training failures or about any overly zealous bad apples in our law enforcement personel, but when it comes to official designations the law is actually pretty reasonable here.
Like the anarchist groups that dress in all black and attack people/infra/stores in the middle of the night during riot?
Its hard to say, because political violence is a spectrum and the border is very blurry between being an organized violent rioter and someone engaging in terroristic activities. Both are bad in their own way.
But fundamentally there doesn't seem to be a huge categorical/technical difference between violent rioting and "terroristic" activism other than that terroristic attacks are simply the more serious/worse version of political violence.
EX: Once it gets to the point of targeting actual critical infrastructure, we can call that terrorism, and just getting into a fist fight at a roudy protests wouldn't be (even though both are technically political violence).
That being said, serious riots can cause a lot of damage and even kill people, but the blame is more collectively spread out towards a large group of people, as opposed to a few small groups causing the large amount of damage.
I don't go around dressed in black with anarchist symbols and wearing a mask, attacking people or destroying stores at riots in the middle of the night, no.
I generally stay away from that type of stuff and instead support non-violent, political change that happens within the system and I think those destructive groups are engaging in ineffective and bad tactics.
That's not true. Black Panther was a group. CNT was a group. Even on the other side of the spectrum, KKK and Boogaloo Boys are groups. They all have a name, membership, and identification.
There's no "antifa" organization because antifascism is a concept with different branches of thoughts and practices. Calling antifa an organization is akin to calling "science" an organization. Sure a dictator can arrest millions of people of the "science" terror organization and jail them for their dangerous subversion, but that doesn't make the "science" organization any more real.
Its not controversial to say that right wing extremists exist, some of which even commit violence, so your analogy isn't the brilliant whataboutism gotcha that you intended it to be.
So yes, just like some very far right people exist, that can justifiably be called terrorists, so to do some very far left individuals.
No, its not random people on twitter. If you read the statements that were put it, it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure.
Yeah so I said this: "it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure."
I would say that people who are sabotaging powerplants count as being called far left terrorists. And that is both dangerous and bad. It is not just a random person making tweets. Instead its people sabotaging powerplants.
It is silly to dismiss that all as just being on twitter. When power plants are sabotaged that can kill people.
The answer is to be responsible to the business. The buck stops at the CEO. Therefore, their responsibilities are technically everything in the entire company. And I think many people who have only worked for other people underestimate how valuable that responsibility is.
Many people observe a limited subset of reality. It's highly visible when a company hits a crisis and people lose their jobs; it's much more common, but much less visible, for a CEO to get an after-hours call about a brewing problem which they must immediately work to smooth over.
It’s amazing how many people on this website harp on about nobody noticing their hard work, nobody caring unless the server is down, etc, and not being able to conceive of the remote chance of this same phenomenon applying to other roles in an organisation.
I'm not quite sure why you ask that? I'm not arguing that these two very different examples are the same, I'm explaining more concretely what it means to say that a CEO's job is to "to be responsible to the business".
I do. It’s on the CEO’s shoulders the other 95% of the time. (Which again, I agree is not some horrible deal, it’s much more fun to be a CEO who’s stressed with too many calls than a blue collar worker who’s stressed about feeding their family.)
Most capitalist countries have 100% employment for their citizens and little to no immigration? No. "Every citizen who can work having a job" is not something capitalist countries do. They all take ample advantage of foreign labor, they all have corporations that prioritize their own profits and outsource.
> Most capitalist countries have 100% employment for their citizens and little to no immigration
You must have responded to the wrong post as it has nothing to do with my statement.
That statement is that there is nothing about capitalism that prevents a country from prioritizing its own citizens. That is a perfectly normal and rational thing to do.
Additionally, the exact percentages of unemployement rates also has little to do with capitalism, nor does the uncommonness of fully achieving a lofty but possibly valuable goal also has nothing to do with what capitalism is, nor does it say very much about how valuable that goal is or the value in attempting to aspirationally achieve it.
>You must have responded to the wrong post as it has nothing to do with my statement.
OK. You can't handle context, noted.
>That statement is that there is nothing about capitalism that prevents a country from prioritizing its own citizens.
The free market is what prevents it. The purpose of capitalism is the creation of capital and its transfer to the capitalist class, and the purpose of corporations is to maximize profits to facilitate that process as quickly and efficiently as possible. Neither capitalism as a system nor corporations have an obligation to improve quality of life for their employees beyond their market value, or to "prioritize" the social welfare over profit, or to hire more people than they need.
It's simple supply and demand and there isn't a demand for American labor.
>Additionally, the exact percentages of unemployement rates also has little to do with capitalism
which is weird because you're arguing that capitalist companies need to prioritize "citizen" labor in order to reduce unemployment, or that governments need to force them to.
> Neither capitalism as a system nor corporations have an obligation to improve quality of life for their employees beyond their market value
If by capitalism as a system, we are refering to countries that are capitalists, it seems fairly uncontroversial to say that such countries can prioritize their own citizens.
It is not weird or controversial to say that countries, even capitalist ones, prioritize their citizens in certain cases, nor is it weird to suggest that they aught do so.
> which is weird because you're arguing that capitalist companies need to prioritize "citizen" labor in order to reduce unemployment, or that governments need to force them to.
I am suggesting that it is compatible with being a capitalist country, and is not weird, unusually, or bad to do such a common thing as prioritizing your own citizens.
I wouldn't say that they need to. Merely that it is a normal and compatible, and in many cases desirable goal for said citizens.
Capitalism is at odds with protectionism. Putting citizens above profits doesn't seem like a very capitalist thing to do. Not arguing against it, I'm all for socialism
> Putting citizens above profits doesn't seem like a very capitalist thing to do
Do you... think that people who are pro capitalism believe that their own ideology is harmful? Obviously proponents of a belief think that their ideas and philosophy help their own citizens.
> I'm all for socialism
Thats only because you have definitionally defined socialism as "When you do things that are good", not realizing that other people think that their ideas are also good.
The reason why people support capitalism is specifically because they think it is a good idea and benefits a country, and its citizens.
Are you trying to imply, without making any direct argument, that this is never a useful frame of reference?
In comparison to cloud services, having access to the assembly code can still be quite useful.
This is especially true in the modern era, where you can use AI to much more easily decompile the assemble and reconstruct the source code even.
"Open-assembly" code may be more useful than you might previously have thought, given the ease of recreating the source code or making changes with AI these days.
> You don't get why people would like to be in control of a powerful new technology
You will not have that control. Even if everything were open source. This is because you don't have 100 million dollars of compute.
There, the difference for almost everyone is negligible.
> Without fully end-to-end open source models you are still at the mercy of the model provider to keep providing updates
No. Because you can post train it. And even if you could train the whole thing again, but with slight changes, once again, you aren't spending the hundred mil in compute to change it only a little bit.
Instead, you'll do post training like everyone else does.
reply