The Trump administration recently published "America's AI Action Plan". One of the first policy actions from the document is to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change from the NIST's AI Risk Framework.
Lacking any sense of irony, the very next point states LLM developers should ensure their systems are "objective and free from top-down ideological bias".
Par for the course for Trump and his cronies, but the world should know what kind of AI the US wants to build.
What matters more? What AMERICA wants, or what the administration enacts in to policy? You're missing the point if you're arguing about my phrasing.
The phrasing means everything.
Example: "Trump wants..."
VS
Example: "America wants..."
Big difference. Executive Orders are a memo, not law. It's disturbing that I have to keep saying this and explaining this.
You know, this might actually be really bad politics.
Trump is not the only person at the top. He's kind of a lame duck, actually: he just does whatever Miller says. The only time he steps in is when he's personally insulted by something because he desperately wants everyone to know he's a very special boy.
I do take issue with democrats blaming everything the republicans are up to on Trump specifically, as if the party might return to normal once he dies.
It probably will return somewhat to normal, assuming public opinion continues on its trajectory. People overwhelmingly don't like Trump, so anyone affiliated w/ him are going to hurt in the next couple elections unless public opinion turns around.
I don't know what "normal" looks like, but it's probably somewhere between Trump and Bush. I'm still not a fan, but moving away from Trump is going to be a net win.
Well, this is what I'm asking for, so I sure hope so.
So, keep in mind, republican voters are not upset with Trump because they've decided they no longer want a border wall. The architects of Project 2025 don't need anything from Trump but political power, which they already have.
The next election cycle, if it's real, I do imagine will swing back, but it cannot just "swing back," it needs to deal with the sickness plaguing the US. That sickness is the republican party. That sickness is the republican voter.
I disagree, and this just smacks of tribalism.
The problem is people wanting to force others into their worldview, parties are just a tool to get that done. The real solution is ending the two party system so people can express themselves better, not to replace one problem with another.
No, I will force nazis into my worldview, actually. They can come willingly, or we can beat them into submission like we did 80 years ago.
What, actually, is wrong with you? Building alligator auschwitz does, in fact, make you a bad person—if you seriously disagree with this, then you and I are enemies.
Yes, building the detention center is absolutely terrible. I hate everything about the recent changes WRT immigration, and I probably don't even know the half of it.
We're a nation of immigrants, and we should absolutely be encouraging more legal immigration. In fact, my personal opinion is that we should make a new type of temporary "work seeking" visa where you're given some time (say, 1 month) to find a job, and if you get a job, it automatically turns into a work authorization visa, with the stipulation that the employer must report when that job ends, at which point you have another month to find a new job before you have to leave. IMO, this completely solves the migrant worker issue, without needing to mess w/ quotes for longer-term visas. Those employers would also receive closer scrutiny to catch any illegal activity (i.e. shell companies employing cartels).
However, associating it w/ the Holocaust is disgusting and again smacks of tribalism. Yes it's a terrible facility, but AFAIK there's zero overlap w/ what the Nazis did. Since it's on US soil, they do have to follow US law in how they treat people, unlike Gitmo.
If you actually think Republicans have much overlap w/ Nazis, then you're delusional. It's just like Republicans claiming Democrats are Marxists. The name calling isn't productive and just cheapens what each of those terms mean.
Yes, some people in the Republican camp court fascist policies, but by and large, they are not fascist. Call them out on actual policy issues and convince people to vote them out w/ logic, don't just lean into rhetoric.
You think that caging brown people "for no reason" is a disgusting comparison to the Holocaust?
This is unreal. I didn't see this conversation coming at all. You're actually doing nazi apologia. You're refusing to acknowledge the pressure building in your pipes only because the pipes haven't burst yet. How many brown people do you want to die before you're willing to concede this? Do we need to wait until the full 6 million?
No. They don't.
Call them out for being evil. Their policies are evil.
If the majority of Republicans are not evil, as you say, then they should have no problem dropping the line. They can form a new party, and the current one can be dropped into a wastebin in hell.
How many have or are likely to die due to this? That would obviously depend on the duration of detention, and I honestly don't know much about that, but these people should have the right of due process since they're on US soil (5th and 14th amendments). So they can't just be incarcerated indefinitely (habeas corpus), they'd have to be tried or released in a timely fashion.
The Holocaust differs in so many ways:
It's not remotely the same thing, and comparing them is ridiculous rhetoric. Comparing everything the right does to Nazism and the Holocaust is intellectually dishonest, meant to convince someone to your side through emotional language instead of facts.
If there are deaths, they're going to be incidental to incarceration, as in people already in poor health dying due to added stress of incarceration or something, and not something directly done by the guards.
And unfortunately, that's something that's going to have to be worked out in the courts. According to US law, they must be subject to audit to ensure Constitutional Law is being followed.
True, but I'm not sure what this has to do w/ anything.
If that's accurate (I haven't reviewed it), then that provision will likely be struck down by a court. You can't just hamstring the branch of the government that decides whether law is constitutional and expect them to just roll over, even the conservative Supreme Court would very likely strike this down.
And they have been. Look at Trump's approval rating. I live in a very red state, and he has a net negative approval rating here, which is absolutely bonkers. This will have an impact on the next couple elections, but it's hard to tell what the actual results will be. But if Trump keeps pissing off his base, it could get very spicy indeed.
Wow.
You know, it's no wonder you live in a red state; you're still bought into the republican propoganda. I believe you that the "immigrants" rounded up into unmarked ICE vans will be tried fairly, and only the vile criminals among them will be deported to an El Salvador slave camp.
Deporting people en masse is genocide.
The conservative justices are loyal to the Republican party. The Republican party does not want to be held accountable. What on earth gives you the idea they'll want to strike this down?
His approval rating is only down among Republicans because his tariffs have been hurting them and not the brown people they voted to kill.
They thought the white ethnostate Trump would usher in would make them lions among sheep, and they are only upset that they are among the sheep.
—Not to mention, listen to any on-the-streets interviews with republican voters about their disapproval, fucking all of them say they'd vote for him again.
Absolutely beside myself at your cavalier attitude. I do hope your state gets everything it voted for.
That's the absolutely horrendous part, and you should be criticizing those camps. This detention center isn't that.
That's not true. This is what genocide means:
Deportation is the national version of trespassing someone from a property. It's not murder.
They're really not. Their interests do often align, but that's not because they're taking orders from the GOP. If the GOP was actually able to tell them what to do, they'd side w/ Trump way more often.
That's not what they did.
They largely voted for protectionism (save our jobs/businesses/etc), and now they're feeling the results of that.
Only a small subset of Republicans are actually racist. I'm sure the same is true among Democrats as well.
Why? Because I refuse to jump on the Republican hate bandwagon? I'm not going to stoop to dangerous rhetoric to try to scare/shame people to my viewpoint.
I strongly disagree with Republicans on policy, but more importantly I see the two party system as the real problem here. Shilling one side over another just perpetuates that system and merely swings the pendulum the other way.
So no, I'm not going to buy into that nonsense. And my state is doing quite well, despite the best efforts of our legislature.
I did not use the word "law". So you're arguing that EO's have no actual effect? That is blatantly false: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-dei-purge-is-hitting-nasa-hard/
I'm arguing that you're intentionally trying to play semantics with phrasing and claim it doesn't matter, when it absolutely does, and everyone in here is explaining to you why. That's all.
Okay. My argument is that the semantics don't matter because what matters is policy.
And since you did use the word "policy", I did mention that EO's aren't laws. It's a memo. He has no control via EOnof anyone except the people in his purview. Not private companies, not researches, not law, not state governments.
You're saying that EO's are not policy?
EO's are policy insofar as they can affect the Executive Branch and what it controls, and nothing else. The history of the use is mainly for "the spirit" of something, but only in the past 20 years or so has been weaponized to be used for trying to attempt to guide actual policy. Never in the way Trump has tried to use them, which is "law by decree".
The joke is they know it's bullshit and meaningless. This all happened in his first term. 220 total, 157 shot down in court, 27 revoked. It's an office memo at best. Biden even tried to do thenstudent debt cancellation through EO, and it got shot down in court.
Executive orders only affect federal agencies. If they were laws, we'd all be arrested.
That...what???
No, your choice of phrasing conveys your message.
If you're argument is not against the American people, but rather the administration, then your wording is, well, wrong.
How do you refer to the machinations of a state?
No. You're dodging the argument. You chose to phrase it that way. And pretending that's just some incidental thing with no meaning honestly is about the dumbest response I've seen in a while.
You have made the argument that it is the American people, not the administration. You. Not anybody else.
I did not use the phrase "the American people".
Wow.
Just...wow.
You honestly think that's an argument?!?
Goodbye
Based on your post history, I think we're on the same side. I understand that this administration does not represent all of America. Unfortunately though, the semantics of it all don't really matter. Trump got the majority vote, and that's what matters. The effects of his policies matter. From the perspective of the rest of the world, this is what (the majority of) America has chosen. I don't like it either.
Friend, seriously...listen to the very clear reason being used to explain the deficiency of your argument here.
The way you phrase something absolutely changes the meaning of its point. You can't say something and then try to justify that the ends are the same, so it's cool. Literally why people use the phrase "the ends don't justify the means".
If Trump comes out and says some dumb shit, you can't just say "AMERICA WANTS THIS", because that is obviously untrue.
It would work the same way with 4 people in a car, and the driver wants hamburgers. The entire car doesn't want hamburgers, just the driver of the car. How you want to argue the outcome or explanation of that very much decides on how you intend to phrase the situation. All you know right now is that the driver wants a hamburger, so it would disingenuous to say everyone wants hamburgers.
I think it's nice that many Americans don't want what Trump wants. I think it's unfortunate that in this case it doesn't actually have an effect because the policy will be acted upon anyway.
Sure. Right. Like the straws, and the Trans in athletic events, and the flights from undesirable countries, and the "Gulf of America".
Get with reality here.
Is this not a real and direct effect of EOs? Doesn't it matter that NASA was forced to change their behavior because of EOs? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-dei-purge-is-hitting-nasa-hard/
NASA is part of the Executive Branch and has always been influenced by whomever is in charge. It literally owes much of existence to a single president demanding them to go the moon.
It's not that there can't be real effect, it's that they aren't LAW. If people go along with it, they're getting a sort of pass that says "hey, this is illegal, but we won't prosecute you". That's different than it being an actual law. The outcome is essentially decided by the people capitulating to these stupid things. This is why Harvard, GW, Stanford...etc are taking this court, because they know they will win on the LAW.
Judges can't use EO as law. Fact. If Trump tries to influence the public at large with these stupid things, it will AND HAS get shot down in court.
I have never once said in this conversation that EOs are law. You insist on bringing that up. What I am saying is that Trump's EOs do have an actual effect, regardless of what their historical purpose was, and that's what matters in the real world.
You need to realize how insanely defensive you're being. Why? For what?
Think about what you're arguing for for a second: America doesn't want AI, only Trump's administration does. Is this not all of politics?
"America doesn't want free health care, only some of its democrats do."
"America doesn't want ranked choice voting, lots of people in Wyoming hate ranking things. And math."
"America doesn't want gay marriage, there are still lots of people really upset about that supreme court ruling."
You're drawing a scenario in which "America" can't actually "want" anything because no one ever agrees on who America is.
I'm being competely serious: you need to unwrap your ego from all this. This isn't about you. ICE raids aren't your—you specifically—your fault. No one is saying it is.
America is a really, really big machine, and sometimes it does things I don't like. Sometimes it does things I do. You know what I mean?
I disagree with that premise, America elected Trump under a democracy in which his view points were clear. He was elected to represent Americans and as such I think it's fair to use Trump's wants and America synonymously
No. America did not, and if you've been keeping track, he lost the popular vote by a huge margin the first time (which included insane amounts of election interference), and only "won" by 1.6% the second time, and only because of very specific gerrymandering and hoop jumping.
Saying that's a clear direction for an entire country is fucking insane. Like if I have $0.51 I might as well have a dollar. It's just an insane argument.
So if you're in a democracy and he doesn't represent the american people, what does he represent ?
Apparently you don't know how a democracy works.