You call it globalism, when it is in practice having good trade relations.

And the opposite case is also a quick way to degenerate cases: if Canada devalued cooperation, what is the argument for provinces to not do the same? And thus it would only fuel Quebec and Alberta separatism.

You already see it with Brexit which is clearly opening further "us-vs-them" outlooks in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Haven't you heard that thanks to Trump and the Republicans, the start-stop engines are now banned and gas stoves are back? Have you heard the cries of joy every time this has been mentioned in Republican rallies?

This is an asinine decision that essentially makes vote buying totally legal. We see this trick with the recent Supreme Court decisions that essentially make racial gerrymandering legal again by just making the crime impossible to prove by accepting any other justification at face value.

Don't forget: you can accept bribes as long as you receive them after the fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._United_States I guess I will never pay another restaurant bill again, since any possible future "gratuity" I might award them would of course have no bearing on their past decision to bring me a plate of food.

I mean, if you really believe that, then no politician would ever be able say something like "I'll work to get you free health care".

Yeah. I'm not sure how a strict reading doesn't end up with obvious policies ending up making all of the policies below "vote buying":

    - Cancel student loans
    - Reduce federal tax rates
    - Increase unemployment/pension/etc payouts

There is always a state of "this policy upside is contingent on voting for me" - though in Trumps case he is making it contingent Not on his own electoral outcome in some sense. Just messy.

As is often the case with our commander in chief, things once expressed subtly are now expressed brazenly.

>Iran is the source for the Islamic justification for suicide bombing (suicide is forbidden in the Quran and thus 'innovation' was needed to justify it). That alone puts immense amounts of blood on their hands. They invented this justification for their own religious and geopolitical aims (getting the US out of the ME).

Pure lie. The inspiration for suicide bombings comes from the Israeli and their fascination for Samson, and the Irgun praised suicide attacks for decades after their dissolution. The "Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners" was an Israeli proxy in Lebanon who started suicide bombings before the Hezbollah. It was quickly adopted by all sides - including secular nationalists - in the Lebanese civil war because it worked. Sunni and secular nationalists don't listen to Shia scholars.

>They are interventionists who want to be the spiritual centre of Islam, they are the opposite of passive actors in their region.

They are an oppressed minority in all of Islam, the majority Sunni have always wanted to exterminate all of them. Iran is the only Shia country, their only safe refuge, similar is Israel for the Jews. You tell disgusting lies. If anything, it is the Saudi - the very good friends of the USA - who are the expansionists and interventionists.

What a refreshing, albeit completely fictional, recount of history.

If a LLM says "I am in pain", is it just stringing together words or is it feeling pain? Does pain exist for a being that never felt any kind of physical pain, never had any pain receptors?

There are humans who don't have any pain receptors because of genetic mutations. They cut themselves all the time, they bleed, they break bones and they don't seem distressed by it even on a purely mental, intellectual level.

I am not saying that everything that a LLM say is true (the human without pain receptors can also say "I have pain" without feeling any pain).

Just that we cannot exclude that LLMs can have phenomenological consciousness by a simple argument of substrate. But similarly we cannot say for sure that they are conscious.

Genuine counterpoint:

If a human says "I am in pain", is it just stringing together words or is it feeling pain?

If you take that seriously it's quite a tough question to unwind. See e.g. Dennett's heterophenomenology conversations.

What counterpoint is that?

The human saying "I am in pain" may feel pain, or may not and be just stringing together words.

The AI can only string together words. It has none of the organs to feel pain. It never had. It has always been code.

These humans without pain receptors can still suffer just as much as the rest of us.

Oportet ministros manus lavare antequam latrinam relinquent.

He is literally doing the "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders" bit but without any irony.

Because they reflect their creators' values.

>One conference speaker, Grindr CEO George Arison, told the BBC he believed this week's comments from Coxon and others were indicative of an "anti-civilisational worldview at Anthropic".

>He called them "dangerous" and said they had prompted him to instruct some engineers at the LGBTQ+ dating app to stop using Anthropic's technology.

>"It is irresponsible for us as stewards of our shareholders' money to be relying on a business that does what this company does, in terms of its public statements," he said.

"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders" but without any irony.

>Judge the current US policy by the current US.

Then it is obvious we need to preemptively nuke the USA right now.