[pesus]

I find it interesting that Altman's fans seem to keep skipping past this fact. I'd love to hear their defense as to why one person potentially being responsible for hundreds or thousands of deaths is acceptable, but attacking that one person isn't. If violence is never the answer, they should be condemning Altman with even more vigor.

[IMTDb]

> why one person potentially being responsible for hundreds or thousands of deaths is acceptable

I am not sure who exactly is that one person ? Is it Altman, who is according to many people not that knowledgeable in AI in the first place; the scientist who found a breakthrough (who is it ?); is it the president of the United States who is greenlighting the strikes; the general who is choosing the target (based on AI suggestions); the missile designer; the manufacturer; the pilot who flew the plane ?

I get the point of concentrating power in fewer hands, but the whole "all the problems of this world are caused by an extremely narrow set of individuals" always irks me. Going as far as saying there is just one is even mor ludicrous.

[roysting]

I’m fine with holding them all accountable to varying degrees. For example, yes, ultimately the president is responsible, but so is the person who dropped bombs instead of refusing an illegal order; just like the street dealer, gang banger, trafficker, and cartel boss are all guilty of all of their various crimes.

What do you find difficult to understand about that?

[maest]

Accountability sinks are good value and wealthy people always make sure they have enough of them

[idiotsecant]

Ah the old 'everyone is responsible so nobody is responsible' canard.

I will give you a helpful rule of thumb: when in doubt the guy with a bank account larger than the total lifetime income of hundreds of thousands of people is probably the one to blame.

[IMTDb]

Ah the old ‘in case of doubt just go after the rich guy’. That makes stuff simple doesn’t it ?

You can establish responsibilities just by counting the number of zeroes in a bank account. On top of this, it works for everything: the same dude is responsible for wars, the climate, world hunger, child cancer and your bathroom mirror being fogged this morning.

[GMoromisato]

The entire purpose of government is to have a monopoly on violence. Democracies give their government the power to decide when and against whom to deploy violence.

There is a real difference between giving a democratic government the tools to kill people vs attempting to kill people yourself. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe in democracy.

[pesus]

I'm not sure the next batch of schoolgirls getting bombed will particularly care whether the choice was made "democratically" or not.

I also won't particularly care about the distinction when AI is inevitably used to enact violence on the US population.

[GMoromisato]

Agreed--but so what? If you believe in democracy, you work within democratic means to enact your views. If you don't believe in democracy and use violence outside the system, then you are an enemy of democracy.

[mvc]

Did the suffragettes not believe in democracy?

[GMoromisato]

I don't know enough about the suffragettes, but didn't they get new laws passed to gain the right to vote? That sounds like working within democratic means.

A better example is the Civil War. The southern states refused to accept the free and fair election of Lincoln and decided to secede, which was not allowed by the Constitution.

Are you arguing that the Confederates were right to violate the law just because they believed they were right?

[pesus]

Ah, the classic "people excluded from the democratic process must only work within the democratic process". It might be worth looking into what the suffragettes did, because it wasn't politely begging men to please let them vote.

Have you not heard of the labor movement? Or abolitionists? Or the founding of this country? Or people fighting against Nazi control of their country?

All of those worked outside "legal" means. The law is quite often irrelevant to what's right or moral, and dying on the hill of breaking the law ensures no change can ever occur when a system or person in power inevitably wrongs people.

[lostlogin]

> There is a real difference between giving a democratic government the tools to kill people vs attempting to kill people yourself. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe in democracy.

Is this what we just saw with America attacking Iran?

[GMoromisato]

Yes. Whether you agree with it or not, the attack on Iran was legally ordered within the bounds of American law.

It may have been a stupid order, but it was not unconstitutional.

[shakna]

> The entire purpose of government is to have a monopoly on violence.

... Isn't that rather against the spirit of the US' constitution? I can see it being a thought with other nations, but not this particular one.

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Which kinda follows the spirit of English Common Law:

> The ... last auxiliary right of the subject ... is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is ... declared by ... statute, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. - Sir William Blackstone

A "monopoly on violence" is exactly the thing our laws are supposed to protect us against. Because if a state has that, then they have a monopoly against all rights, because they alone can employ violence to curb those who do not subscribe to the state's ideology.

I'm pretty much a pacifist. I _like_ Australia's gun laws. But, a government's purpose is to protect their people. They are to be representative - or to be replaced. If they leave no other choice for that, then violence is the only answer left.

[tines]

The above posts forgot the word "legitimate" before "monopoly": a state is defined as the entity that has the legitimate monopoly on violence within a defined geographic area. A state can cease to have the legitimate monopoly before they cease to have the monopoly.

[GMoromisato]

I agree with this. I should have said that.

[GMoromisato]

I don't see the contradiction. What we mean by a "monopoly on violence" is that the government decides who and under what conditions gets to commit violence. The government orders soldiers to kill enemies. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force under certain conditions. And in the US, citizens are allowed to use deadly force under certain conditions.

The key issue is that government (via courts) is the one that decides whether violence is justified or not.

You're right that a government that no longer represents its people must be replaced. But that's not the case in America. The conflict in America is between two different groups of people with different ideas about what the right thing to do is. So far, these two groups have used democracy to get their way. As long as that continues, there is no problem.

But when people use violence outside government law, just because they don't agree with the decisions of the government, then that's not justice--that's just terrorism.

[shakna]

Its the source of the right. It is not the government that permits citizens to use deadly force in certain conditions. Its an "inalienable right". Something that the government is to ensure it doesn't infringe on, rather than regulate.

It is the right of a person, rather than the government, under the way the US constitution is structured.

[GMoromisato]

I agree with you--the point of 2A is to constrain the government so it doesn't infringe on that inalienable right.

I should have been clearer that I don't mean only the government is allowed to use violence legitimately. Sometimes citizens can use violence legitimately.

But that doesn't mean an individual gets the final word on whether something is self-defense vs. murder. If I kill someone in an argument, I can't just say "it's my inalienable right to wield violence, so buzz off!". I will be put on trial and the justice system will decide whether I'm a murderer or not.

That's what I mean by "monopoly". The government+constitution+laws are the sole deciders on when it is appropriate to use violence, not individuals who think they are dispensing justice. The latter are either vigilantes or terrorists.

[mvc]

> So far, these two groups have used democracy to get their way.

Oh is that what January 6th was?

[GMoromisato]

I meant only that decisions (such as who gets to be president) have been made within the constitutional system. Violence has not changed any outcomes.

But I will concede that some people on Jan 6th were attempting to change a result by violence. I support sending those people to jail.

[slopinthebag]

This is a distinction without meaning. It makes no moral difference who dispenses justice, if said justice is justified.

[GMoromisato]

Except in our system of government, it is the government (via the courts) that decides what is "justified". It is literally called the "Judicial System".

You can't just decide on your own that violence is justified.

[pocksuppet]

You can, but the government really doesn't like having its authority disobeyed, and there will be consequences.

[AlexCoventry]

Yeah, it's kind of terrifying, how this incident seems to have faded from people's memories.