Talk is cheap. The real-world implications of mass-murder are not as easy as one would like to imagine.
What do you think is more likely, that the powers that be go "Oh, they were nazis, that's fine then" or "Look, the left are the violent ones, we need to take away the rights of anyone who associates with them!"?
With that said, can some of y'all come down here to Florida? We've got a Nazi problem that's getting out of control and can use some support.
I don't mean to be negative but what can other people do? I feel like it'll be difficult to motivate the average non-racist to move to a place where they might have worse job prospects, get ostracized for their political/social views, and get both harassed and potentially arrested/killed by the police for trying to protest against racism.
I don't want to argue about anything else here but this part
Remember, this is a country with a well established nuclear industry.
Is not an accurate representation of the situation in Sweden. It has had very strong anti-nuclear sentiments for at least 40 years and all its nuclear plants are old. Old old. There's even been strong governmental pressure limiting what you're allowed to research or develop in regards to nuclear power.
Renewables are good, cheap, and fast, but that part was just not accurate in my mind.
What's the alternative here? Only letting big companies without any ethical regards rent housing?
Sure, there's a good argument to be made that housing is essential to survive and as such should be provided by the government, but that's not the world we live in. In this society, it's likely someone is going to have to rent it out and I'd rather it be a person who actually gives a shit and can be held responsible rather than some faceless corporation.
Sometimes people have to wait multiple hours to vote which might lead to them not being able to get to their jobs or their children in time. In elections where I'm sure a lot of them feel like their votes won't make a difference. I suggest one tries to imagine why people could be impacted differently than oneself in certain situations before finding reasons to criticize them.
Out of curiosity, what are you're thoughts on the below scenarios:
attempted robbery
If you go to a bank and attempt to steal money, but you were unsuccessful in doing so, there wouldn't be any loss, but you'd still go to jail and it's widely accepted as wrong.
getting a service, e.g going to the barbers and running out of the store before paying
There wouldn't be a loss again
Those aren't really good equivalents since in the first example, you're trying to take something away from someone but you fail. The law is not concerned with your skill, just your intent. Attempted murder is illegal even if the victim is still alive.
In the second example, there is absolutely a loss. The barber would have spent time and used resources in order to provide you with that service that they wouldn't get compensated for. Your involvement directly costs them money and time, unlike with piracy where even a billion people pirating won't cost the developer any more money than if those people just never played it to begin with.
maybe we should not be building our world around the premise that it is
I feel like this is a really important bit. If LLMs turn out to have unsolvable issues that limit the scope of their application, that's fine, every technology has that, but we need to be aware of that. A fallible machine learning model is not dangerous; AI-based grading, plagiarism checking, resume-filtering, coding, etc. without skepticism is dangerous.
LLMs probably have very good applications that could not be automated in the past but we should be very careful of what we assume those things to be.
Yes, but the prerequisite is kind of that they will wreck the west (which is the main region keeping English as the lingua franca) but not the other regions when the west is likely going to be less impacted by a lot of issues than other parts of the world, for example just due to geography.
The thing is, we can't exactly go by history since we've never been as interconnected as we are now. Intercontinental travel could potentially be seen as "just" a huge step up in transportation compared to the past but the internet has fundamentally changed how we communicate. When it comes to technology and science, English is the de facto standard and it's gonna take something pretty huge to disrupt that.
Why would the lingua franca change again? No type of Chinese, Indian, nor any African language has even remotely the same spread as English does. I'd wager some proficiency in English exist in a sizeable part of the population in almost every country on earth, same can't be said for most other languages (if any).
I think I fail to see the relevance a bit. Jews marking others is not only horrific but ironic because that's part of how they were oppressed in the events leading up to the holocaust.
Talk is cheap. The real-world implications of mass-murder are not as easy as one would like to imagine.
What do you think is more likely, that the powers that be go "Oh, they were nazis, that's fine then" or "Look, the left are the violent ones, we need to take away the rights of anyone who associates with them!"?