[yanderekko]

>The fact that Palantir is a criminal organization is plainly true and certainly substantive.

Perhaps it's plainly true in some trivial sense (all large orgs have committed some crimes), but not in any legally-relevant sense. Otherwise people have to explain the obvious incongruity between this "plain truth" and the obvious fact that Palantir is not facing the sort of legal problems that would be expected of a "criminal organization" (and no, saying "the US judiciary is just very very corrupt" is not a "plain truth" either.)

[CPLX]

It’s not true in a trivial sense it’s true in a deep and legally relevant sense. The company is a major accomplice in the blatantly illegal mass surveillance of Americans.

This isn’t like a big conspiracy theory people have won Pulitzer Prizes over it and all that.

It’s a completely reasonably inference that this person advocating for fewer restrictions on a powerful new technology is hoping to use it to conduct more sophisticated mass surveillance on Americans.

As I said, nothing could be more substantive to this thread.

[yanderekko]

It sounds like you're arguing that these government programs are "criminal enterprises", which would be a much deeper problem if the legal system can't weed them out.

Even were that the case, it's unclear to me that merely providing material aid to a criminal government organization would make a company a "criminal enterprise".

Perhaps uncharitably, this seems akin to arguments that would condemn a large share of contractors involved in military / police / intelligence work as "criminal".

[CPLX]

Yes members of government who routinely break the law and those who further those efforts are engaged in criminal enterprise.

Yes of course the inability of the legal system to deal with it is a deep problem.

My argument is that people who break the law are criminals. It’s not a subtle point I’m making here.

The only point of confusion seems to be your surprise to discover that people with power commit crimes openly and with impunity.

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtL6kbYiP-w

[yanderekko]

A lot of people similarly claim that the 2020 election was stolen, aided and abetted by a criminal conspiracy. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't agree with those claims, and it wouldn't stem from a skepticism of the base notion that "people with power commit crimes openly and with impunity".

In any case, even when illegal government programs exist it's again unclear to me what sort of due diligence a contractor would have to make to avoid being labeled as a "criminal organization". Similarly, a lot of people consider soldiers who fought in Iraq to be murderers, and I see the point but it would come off as confusing in a normal conversation about a particular person to just casually label them as a murderer because of this.

[CPLX]

Yes some people claim things that aren’t true. Others, conversely, make true statements.

I am pleased that all in this discussion have now demonstrated such a rigorous grasp of the obvious.

To your more specific point, my first recommendation for government contractors who wish to avoid being labeled as a “criminal organization” would be to avoid repeatedly and blatantly committing crimes.

[yanderekko]

Yes, well, I still can't help but find it odd that such "blatant" crimes are apparently the reach of the legal system. My prior under the circumstances is that the claims are overblown, eg. "Iraqi soldiers are murderers" or "all contractors that aided the US intelligence apparatus belong to criminal organizations".

[yyyk]

>legally relevant sense >blatantly illegal mass surveillance

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

It may be illegal, but this is not legally relevant at the moment.

[mattdeboard]

Between this and your "well actually AI Armageddon is a more urgent danger than addressing climate crisis" comment I'm starting to think you're peter thiel's burner account

[jabradoodle]

I could make similar comments about your account being more than 10 years old yet apparently you don't realise there is a preference for informed discussion on this site.

By all means criticise away, by constructing an argument and preferably providing sources.

Saying "X is bad" is cheap and does not further discussion or teach anyone. In fact, that kind of behaviour being normalised is the most susceptible to brigading and bot farms.

[mattdeboard]

oh i'm sorry, was i supposed to treat "the AI doom is more serious and immediate than the climate crisis" like informed discussion ? because that's honestly the dumbest fuckin' thing i've read on this site in a long time. and as you note, i've been here a long time.

no person on earth -- who is informed by anything aside from safeguarding or expanding their own capital -- would make that argument.

[jabradoodle]

I don't know how to say it any more clearly; by all means criticise palantir, criticise AI maximalism, it's not about the content of your beliefs.

Comments such as: > Yeah, no shit. That's what I'm saying, Peter

Are in contradiction with HN guidelines and what makes this site valuable, in my opinion, is informed discussion. There are multiple forums where sarcasm and low effort comments are the norm; HN should be more than that.

[mattdeboard]

oh brother. your account is 2 months old. God only knows what disgusting filth was spilling out of your mouth to get your other accounts banned. Please keep sending me patronizing lectures about decorum in hn comment sections. You're literally concern trolling bud.

[yanderekko]

Yes, you got me. I'm actually Peter Thiel and I'm really an AI Doomer but I'm hiding that in my public pronouncements because I'm willing to shave years off my life expectancy to ensure that I die while I'm as rich as possible.

[mattdeboard]

Yeah, no shit. That's what I'm saying, Peter.