| ▲ | mlyle 2 hours ago | |
? we're talking about autonomous weapons systems. That would be internationally. Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic. (But they do not find an issue with international intelligence gathering-- which is a legitimate purpose of national security apparatus). | ||
| ▲ | janalsncm 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
I think the person you are replying to takes issue with the thing which you have simply asserted. | ||
| ▲ | isodev an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
I don’t think deploying “80% right” tools for mass surveillance (or anything that can remotely impact human life) counts as lawful in any context. Just because the US currently lacks a functioning legislative branch doesn’t magically make it OK when gaps in the law are reworded into “national security” | ||
| ▲ | Jeremy1026 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
One of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance. | ||