M1ch431

I think making value judgements on individuals is a counterproductive use of our time, energy, and voice. That's what I'm trying to point out.

If we focused on root causes and the change we'd like to see to solve those problems, we'd be smooth sailing as a world already.

Yeah, I know.

Can I get a copy of Microsoft's AI on the free market? Can I get direct support for killing children and women with a company's proprietary AI on the free market?

Your arguments have fallen flat, but I'm here to be enlightened. You know so much that you're defending these companies and diluting their involvement, so clearly I must be misunderstanding something here or my knowledge isn't sufficient.

Convince me harder that Microsoft's direct involvement is actually not so bad, and these dastardly companies that indirectly provide hardware are somehow just as responsible for AI killing innocents. If these hardware manufacturers have specific contracts or involvement with that state or its military, I'd like to know.

Microsoft Office also doesn't especially facilitate the killing of innocents. And they could easily use other software, the functionality isn't unique or specialized like AI.

Just to be clear, the whole world is indeed responsible for what happens here. The free market doesn't absolve everyone of their shared responsibility. You could pull your entire head of hair out boycotting or screaming at every individual or group that provides support to one thing or the other, direct or otherwise.

My goal is to just point out the truth and also help people see it clearly. Microsoft et. al are a symptom of a larger dysfunction in society. People are so disconnected and propagandized that they don't even know truth from fiction, and the people that do understand the truth (to some degree) sit there and downplay modern atrocities as "the best we can do" and point fingers wildly at individuals who the media wants us to pay attention to instead of addressing the root causes.

AI should not be used for military purposes. That's my point.

And I'd like to apologize in advance if I misunderstood or misrepresented your points.

I'm not suggesting that they be murdered. You're saying some are worse than others, I'm just saying the concept should die.

Thanks for agreeing with my sentiment loosely, sorry to trigger you.

You said you boycott all of them. How are you posting a reply?

I am not the same commenter.

Providing goods on the free market is not the same thing as directly partnering. Please enlighten me, does Intel, AMD, and ARM specifically and directly sell/provide their specialized components through another mechanism than the free market to that state/military?

What hardware or software Microsoft chooses to power their infrastructure is their choice. Could the companies that provide this hardware boycott Microsoft? I don't know how effective that would be because you can't choose who buys your products on the free market - you, however, can choose who you directly sell to or contract with.

And I don't care how smart AI and specifically LLMs are. The hardware is irrelevant. AI is still determining the targets (and potentially even firing the shots). This technology and the companies who provide this specialized technology are, at minimum, participating in the slaughter. The AI is proprietary and closed-source, these companies are willingly providing access and working with their military to specialize it for war.

He's acting like Elon Musk is solely responsible. He's diluting a very large issue (modern slavery) and watering it down to Elon Musk bad.

Bill Gates is educated and present in these countries. He knows what really is going on.

Can you blame me for being angry that there is mass suffering, death, and slavery, while everybody in the know acts dumb, and the truth is hidden from the masses?

Edit: Your downvotes have been noted. Thanks for providing your feedback finitebanjo.

I'm mad that he's silent and complicit while people suffer. Perhaps I'll work on my anger while he hopefully works on finding his voice and speaking the truth.

He pays regularly for media attention, why can't he pay to expose western atrocities?

If there is still slavery and these countries are largely poor, yet western society relies on them for their labor, natural resources, and goods/exports, his 100 billion dollars means nothing.

He could've spent that 100 billion a whole lot more effectively. Like shining a light on western companies supporting child slavery to harvest cocoa or enabling these countries to break free from western imperialism.

That's all I see Bill doing. Throwing coins at impoverished and exploited people does not properly address or solve the issues they are facing. Bill Gates surely knows of the exploitation that African countries face at the hands of western imperialism. He could use his influence to shine a light on modern atrocities.

If they were paid fairly for their labor and paid a fair price for their goods and exports; these countries would not be starving, they could afford their own vaccination programs on the back of the own economies, they would be able to provide everyone with access to clean water, and they would be able to develop their societies as they see fit, including providing education to their citizens.

Because $92 million is such a large number when you have so much wealth. What would that fund here? A handful of buildings and a few highways?

Directly partnering with and providing services/technology/AI to a state's military, that is in the act of war, is facilitating that war.

Using AI to target strikes/etc., is absolutely AI making the decision to kill. They just chose to let AI do it for them.

How much money has Bill put towards developing Africa and directly improving their living standards?

Has he addressed modern slavery and modern child slavery (which we rely on for our cocoa)?

Has he addressed colonialism and imperialism?

These countries are extracted for everything they are worth, they are exploited for their labor, resources, and goods, and they remain poor while wealth concentrates to the few in first-world countries.

His "philanthropy" surely helps him to be aware of the situations that these countries face. But let's just shift an important topic and reduce it to value judgements. Got it.