While I also find the handle quite objectionable, I wouldn't say that "racewar" and "genocide" are words which can be freely exchanged without lack of meaning.
A review of the contributors, well, contributions, suggests a 9front connection.
They have a reputation for humor in very poor taste, but insofar as there's any sincerity to be found there, it isn't that of sincere genocide enjoyers.
I wonder whether I lack empathy. Sometimes I think "oh, just another shitstorm where someone tries to weaponise people's shitstorm" and I wonder how often that's an appropriate reaction.
EDIT: For example people saying "AI bad!" and pointing at bad effects, not mentioning whether the same thing was done before AI but sort of leaving the impression that it's new, relying on people's emphathy to override their memories.
Can the quote be taken “entirely out of context” if the context itself isn’t “entirely clear”? Or does your interpretation of the quote and its meaning differ from the author’s?
The way the quote is used in the title of the article implies that someone involved with Palentir is referring to their AI as a weapon of mass destruction on par with the atom bomb, but when the quote appears in the article it clearly has nothing to do with AI, nor is the speaker comparing himself to Oppenheimer's role in creating the first atom bomb, he's just noting that he is occupying the exact same job as Oppenheimer.
The very elements that you use to argue for why the quote is being taken out of context can be spun around in favor of the interpretation that it is not.
- Many hold the notion that the threat of AI is similar to that of nuclear weapons.
- Gen. Mark Milley is one of the key “characters” in the author's account of their time at Palantir’s conference showcasing its warfare AI.
- Milley works in Nuclear research at Los Alamos, like Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was the lab’s director. Milley’s exact role with the lab isn’t mentioned and I couldn’t verify his exact position, but the present day iteration of the lab is ran by someone else.
- A key theme of the story is how oblivious some key attendants and organizers are of the potential damage that warfare AI will have.
- It can be argued that those in attendance are primarily interested in developing the means to victory on the battlefield at any cost that can be rationalized by credentialed minds. A parallel can be made between warfare AI today and the development of nuclear weapons during WWII.
- Milley is comparing himself to Oppenheimer. He probably does not mean the he is the present director of the Los Alamos laboratory. It’s arguable that he is saying so in an attempt to amuse the author, much to the author's distaste. Note the pop culture references, the author's internal and external jabs in response, and the offering of state department swag (the pens and stickers).
> “Have you seen Oppenheimer?” he asked.
>
> No, I said, but I’d read The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
>
> I thought he was going to talk about the hubris of people who build weapons of war.
>
> Instead, he told me he works in nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos laboratory. Reaching into his backpack, he handed me a few Los Alamos pens and stickers.
These paragraphs and another half paragraph before the actual quote appears in the body of the article set the stage well enough to suffice for context.
A bystander may or may not make the same connections if they were to overhear this conversation as it happened, but an attentive reader can due to the privilege of having intimate knowledge of everything that took place before the exchange and a few details outside of it.
Whether it's conveyed via the actual conversation, or against the backdrop of the author’s publicized impressions during the conference and other elements that exist beyond it, the quote is not positioned inappropriately.
We have to remember that this article is not a traditional “news story”, it is a subjective account. The connections that make the quote noteworthy may not be found by all and sundry, but I’m confident that the Guardian has a feel for its readership and the sentiment that they and others will have about their stance on AI, Palantir, warfare, etc. prior to reading the piece.
I think the literary element at play is something like irony.
The only way the quote might be correct is if Milley is actually directing some AI project and nuclear research is his cover. These days, the "Director of Nuclear Research at Los Alamos" would report to the director since the place is much bigger. Also, his last job was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so he's probably director of something.
Milley actually didn't even say the quote that we're discussing. An unidentified man did.
The meaning of the quote in the context of the exchange where it was made is not entirely clear, I agree with you on that. The headline exploits this uncertainty. The reader's (i.e., me) biases fill in the blanks.
For all we know, the guy was just trying to impress a woman. He could be nothing more than a researcher manning a both, making a bizarre claim at a bizarre conference. His reference to "Oppenheimer" could even be about the film and not the actual man.
Pardon me for your time. I can see why this story is getting so much criticism.
The fragments you chose don't sound hyperbolic, they sound like a subjective account. I'm curious how you made it so far without being able to get a feel for why the author would describe the event how they did.
This is thorough contemplation. Time and time again we are reminded that no idea is wholly original in and of itself, down to the most minute aspect of its thought all the way through to its physical manifestation...Yet hubris, for many, prevails over these evidences. Ah.
I played with manual typewriters and mechanical calculators, back then electronic versions were virtually unheard of.
But I was already intrigued by electronics and figured it would take over in the future. Vacuum tubes were still the only option almost universally. Didn't touch them as a preschooler, high voltage and all that.
With the typewriter, the possibilities were endless, but for the calculator there was only so much you could do to make the right numbers show up in the little squares.
Which led directly to number theory, something that can be learned without being taught.
> There are minimum standards that toddlers do not reach.
I guess there's a grain of truth there, never did get much further ;)
I don't think that's the point. Death is just a dead-obvious example of the fundamental reality that our actions are constrained. Like I guess I could grudgingly admit that maybe hustle culture's absolutely absurd levels of optimism or self belief might somehow help a person overcome obstacles, but I can't help but feel that a person who thinks this way just fundamentally doesn't understand how the universe works.
We're all just one head injury from being unable to most of the things we want. Too much kinetic energy and we die or become permanently maimed. This is an unpleasant thing to consider, but I have trouble accepting that its better to delude oneself.
In my experience people who have the "I can do anything!" attitude tend to step on everyone else's toes and take up space from people with better ideas but a more realistic self appraisal. The whole "go big or go home" attitude typical of some parts of startup culture takes up a lot of resources from great ideas that are more realistic.
At first I wanted to criticize this comment as being a gross oversimplification of the city’s crime rates. After some thought though, there is a lot to be desired from the author’s when it comes down to contextualizing the data.
I mean, can the notion of safety really be relayed by showing a person a bar graphs and telling them to avoid the tall cities?
Apparently this is a hobby project though, so I think I’m expecting too much.
