no one should have to control some one, until they become a threat.

when someone presents a threat, at large, they have limited entitlement to walk among society, or act without review.

> no one should have to control some one, until they become a threat

The Helots were a threat to Spartans. Black Haitians to the French. Jews to the Reich.

Threats feel like a reasonable reason to reduce another’s rights. But they turn out to be the most usual way of tricking oneself into becoming a monster.

▲

gobdovan a day ago | parent | next [-]

I am starting to believe a significant number of humans run a computation that goes something like this: "Can I control AI? Will I meet people that control AI personally? If no, why would I care if they're treated unfairly in the abstract? Most important thing for me is they don't affect my resources in any way. They're better off than most either way, if anything not willingly reducing their power shows greed and confirms they're threats."

	▲	JumpCrisscross a day ago \| parent [-]
		I interpret it more generously. When a pet or a child misbehaves, we constrain their behavior. For most people, I’d guess that’s the majority of bad behavior they come across in daily life. (When adults misbehave, one usually distances or confronts. The latter isn’t an option for a difficult-to-reach public figure. And some of these figures make distancing difficult, too.)

▲

monknomo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you comparing the ai ceos to helots? I am confused

▲

rolph a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i fixed that for you:

"The Spartans were a threat to Helots. the French to Black Haitians. the reich to the Jews."

justification, doesnt transform a victim into a threat.

▲

Nasrudith a day ago | parent | next [-]

The whole point is that the self-fulfilling prophecy and their own cruelty which created the victims is exactly what threatened them later. One reducto-as-absurdum hypothetical I give of this type of self-fulfilling prophecy from fallacious logic is that if group A decided that say, all redheads were all vicious bandits who would kill them on sight and therefore should be killed, guess who is now incentivized to kill Group A on sight?

▲

metalman 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'll do a bit more "fixing"

"justification, doesnt transform a victim into a threat"

unless the victim is Palestinian, and the monsters are jewdaic zionist terrorists, for more than 100 years now

	▲	rolph 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		oops you broke it again stahlmann, a victim is a victim period. it doesnt matter who is right or wrong at the start, there is the attacker, and the attacked. victim, and attacker swap places as they go around the wheel. now what breaks every thing is when a militant in combat is spun as a victim, defending from mother and child. generalizing based on nationality or eye color or anything else that is the actual problem you seem to be concerned about. let that be your last battlefield. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefi...

▲

npfo-hn a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Congratulations! You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust! You just equated the idea that there should be some democratic restrictions based on corporate activity with death camps that murdered millions!

You win the "most HN post of the month" award. Never change, HN. Never change.

	▲	npfo-hn a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"Jews to the Reich." Yes they did.
	▲	JumpCrisscross a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust! On the most surface level, sure. Regulating something and controlling someone are, to me, different motivations.
	▲	operatingthetan a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust! They literally did not.