Treating sociopaths is not the same as lying about sociopaths or sociopathy because you think doing so will prevent sociopathy.

Sure. The key is whether a statement is a genuine truth, or a policy based on a genuine truth plus various moral priors. Moral priors aren't genuine truths, they're predilections or rules of thumb.

And even baldly stating a genuine truth enough times will have effects outside of its truthfulness. People respond to truths, they don't just hear them.

So what if people respond to truths? Is there something wrong with that?

You just admitted you know of two things that will get you banned everywhere. Then you said that taboos (such as against the things that will get you banned everywhere) are only needed to hide possible truths. Connect the dots.

It's less likely that those people are truly independent, and more likely that they simply brought the orthodox beliefs of their countries of origin to the Bay Area.

That’s a good point, although I would still maintain that they constitute a different “type” of person than those that reside in their country of origin, because most people don’t uproot their lives to move between countries. Whether or not that correlates with being more of an independent thinker, I don’t know.

There are millions and millions of people streaming across our border as you read this. Perhaps people moving between countries (or at least, from certain countries to certain other countries) is more common than you think.

> To paraphrase @izs "if you build it, they will come", is a misquote from a Kevin Costner movie about baseball ghosts

That movie was a remake of a much older movie.

How did that cause ChatGPT to be honest? Whenever I catch it in a lie, it always doubles and triples down, while denying that it ever lies.

> And therefore want to do things-which-seem-pointless-to-everyone-else to an algorithm to guard against it.

Or, more likely, to exploit it.

>I think everyone here is pretty clear how they would ethically view such a thing, but view it from NIST's (/ NSA's) perspective for the sake of argument. Maybe there's a specific threat where NIST (or presumably the NSA) believes it has a mandate to insert a backdoor.

That's an incredibly charitable version of their point of view. How's this for their POV: They're angry that they can't see every single piece of communications, and they think they can get away with weakening encryption because nobody can stop them legally (because the proof is classified), and nobody's going to stop them by any other avenue either.

The open-source community will continue adopting "next-gen" "encryption" even though it has back doors, just like they didn't question elliptic curve encryption even after the NSA got caught putting out a compromised algorithm.

> The open-source community will continue adopting "next-gen" "encryption" even though it has back doors, just like they didn't question elliptic curve encryption even after the NSA got caught putting out a compromised algorithm.

The NSA put out a known compromised elliptic curve encryption algorithm? Or are you referring to Dual_EC_DRBG, a probably compromised random number generator?

That's plenty sketchy. They can track you wherever you go.

They don't include street cameras in their data.