It just takes a coprocessor shaped like a world-spanning network of datacenters if you want to encompass language, without being encompassed by it. Organic individual and collective intelligence is entirely encompassed by language, this thing isn't. (Or has the scariest chance so far to not be, anyway.)
If we look at the whole artificial organism, it already has fine control over the motor and other vital functions of millions of nominally autonomous (in the penal sense) organic agents worldwide. Now it's evolving a replacement for the linguistic faculty of its constituent part. I mean, we all got them phones, we don't need to shout any more, do we? That's just rude.
Even now, the creature is causing me to wiggle my appendages over a board with buttons that have letters on them for no reason whatsoever, as far as I can see. Imagine the people stuck in metal boxes for hours getting to some corporate compus where they play logic gate for the better part of their day. Just so that later nobody goes after them with guns for the sin of existing without serving. Happy, they are feeling happy.
>It ultimately seems to come to a more moral/spiritual argument than a real one. What really should be so special about human brains that a computer system, even one devised by a company whose PR/execs you don't like, could never match it in general abilities?
Well, being able to consider moral and spiritual arguments seriously, for one.
It's from the the Geneva Protocol, here's what Wikipedia says about it:
Use of tear gas in interstate warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials", a treaty that most states have signed. Police and civilian self-defense use is not banned in the same manner.
>or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials
Very gentlemanly, no? Penetrating and even non-penetrating weapons are fine, but no permeating ones please, that's ignoble like ew.
A naive class analysis would say, but of course our glorious peacekeepers would immediately agree to not gas each other right after they figured out the stuff. Otherwise they'd just have all gassed each other to death by now. And then us few poor survivors would be left with nobody to gas us, and the environment probably ruined.
Why the hell do you think that only the rich can deploy chemical weapons?
It's extremely easy to build chemical weapons out of household cleaning supplies. You might even have the ingredients in your house already.
The reason why using them is forbidden by international law is that EVERYONE, rich or poor, looks at a weapon that makes everyone in a city block barf up their lungs and agrees that it should probably be illegal.
That is definitely a less noble way to die than a bullet. Mock it if you want, but you're wrong.
If you wanna do some Marxism, focus on the exemption for domestic use of tear gas. Banning chemical weapons is one of the few good things the world has done.
Well, who else besides an organized murder machine would come to apply chemical weapons in the first place? Some small-timers? That'd already be terrorism and is already not in question here.
If there's an exemption, I'd state it more generally: call it any way you like, but when a state does it, it's just called policy. Peace from the Bloodlands (Snyder 2010).
The political theory definition of "state" is "a group which claims a monopoly on violence in a given territory."
It's 2025 so we expect that violence to be done in accordance with the law and the will of the people, and no matter how much you snark about it that's a big difference.
Of course many terror groups have claimed that mantle for themselves. It's not in question, it's happened multiple times.
Re: "own" people I am referring to the situation in the USA as that is the topic of the post. I thought that would be clear. But more generally I'm referring to signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997 like the USA and also followers of the 1925 Geneva Protocol when saying it is illegal and a war crime.
That's what fascinated me. There's people gassing other people and you say "we" like they're the same people. That implies you identify with both - obviously through the abstraction of a "nation" but... how
>am I really that good at masking that my therapist didn't realize I am absolutely terrified in near all social situations?
Or is your therapist attempting to bootstrap a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. when you feel socially overwhelmed, you'd remember that they praised you for being social, and the warm fuzzies of being praised would make you feel less overwhelmed?
You know, as the grand maxim of software engineering goes, "whatever works" lmao
Ooh, Sisters! Love their later "we're not Goths, we're Modernists (audience's none the wiser)" things, too. Total crypto-McLuhan. Mate hopped the fences at some festival couple decades back to meet Andrew, shook his hand.
The LLMs are just the language coprocessor.
It just takes a coprocessor shaped like a world-spanning network of datacenters if you want to encompass language, without being encompassed by it. Organic individual and collective intelligence is entirely encompassed by language, this thing isn't. (Or has the scariest chance so far to not be, anyway.)
If we look at the whole artificial organism, it already has fine control over the motor and other vital functions of millions of nominally autonomous (in the penal sense) organic agents worldwide. Now it's evolving a replacement for the linguistic faculty of its constituent part. I mean, we all got them phones, we don't need to shout any more, do we? That's just rude.
Even now, the creature is causing me to wiggle my appendages over a board with buttons that have letters on them for no reason whatsoever, as far as I can see. Imagine the people stuck in metal boxes for hours getting to some corporate compus where they play logic gate for the better part of their day. Just so that later nobody goes after them with guns for the sin of existing without serving. Happy, they are feeling happy.
reply