dachte

Caitlin KALINOWSKI over X I resigned from OpenAl. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn't an easy call. Al has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got. This was about principle, not people. I have deep respect for Sam and the team, and I'm proud of what we built together.

OpenAI head of robotics just resigned over company deal with the Pentagon saying…

“Surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got”

I don't think it will never come back - it needs to, and in a functional and politically pluralist system it is emergent.

But:
A) It's hard to rebuild it under circumstances like now, and
B) It's hard to fix circumstances like now without it

The right second part: "who will decimate YOUR evil empire?"

This is not a belligerence competition.

Good for her. OpenAI deserves a lot of flak for its handling of this administration.

Someone into rule of law, strong international norms, and so on, someone like me, sees the boatmurders and the showy cruelty in ICE camps, and even though we've never been "burn down the system, man" types, we see things have gone very badly wrong. Our norms - technocratic norms - are burning too.

I consider myself a dedicated normie, supporting center-left technocratic politics and opposing progressivism. Although a lot of us are not normie as a permanent disposition and find ourselves really, really angered by the horrors of this presidency.

The thing about many forms of power is that it's usually better to bank it for when you really need it. Using it often means spending it. Do that enough and you're far less powerful even if you felt really macho shoving other people's faces in the mud.

It'd be nice to defang Israel rather than join it.

Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying. I'm initially reluctant to agree, but I'll think on it.

Is this something like, if you approach a topic, you should work into your writings support for the victims in whatever's being talked about, or any other justice concerns that are pertinent to the topic?

(I don't agree with this, but I am curious if I'm correctly understanding what you're saying)

Unclear what you're asking for. Generally the most prominent metrics used are forthright-truth and relevance.

If one is clear that a political leader is morally bankrupt, but 10% of the examples one brings up are straight-up wrong, and 20% are only sort-of true, should people correct these things?

(I am pulling the numbers out of a hat to ask this as a theoretical)

I'd say yes, even if it breaks momentum.

I think it's right to correct people who are only "right on vibes".

Even when getting the details right is way harder than having good broader points, it's worth correcting people when they get the details wrong.

There are times when I see someone, find them mildly intriguing, and wish I could figure out a way to make their day so I could see their face when it happens.

I rarely feel joy myself (unless I see a cute dog), but I like seeing it in certain others.

Given most of the hires in this administration, I don't think credibility has ever been on their mind.

I don't think there's a reason he could've given for the attack that would've convinced people. It's just increasingly apparent that world peace and human betterment would've been better served had one of the 2 aggressor nations lost its leader, rather than Iran.

Hoping they manage to give Israel a bloody nose. Or perhaps even decapitate the Israeli regime.

I haven't dug into the details of this very deeply, but I trust that the transit geeks that I follow on social media generally know what they're talking about. I appreciate y'all.

Oh, I see how I got confused. And it was in fact entirely my bad. Restaurant Shed is the term used for outdoor dining structures, and I got that mixed up with sidewalk sheds.

At least I'll work on keeping the terms clear in the future. Thanks for poking me on it.

I bet India loves the phrasing of this - that the US decides whether they can buy Russian oil, rather than the Indian Government.

If Modi were not a terrible person, maybe we could hope that he'd cut all economic ties with Russia until they're done trying to eat their neighbours.

I wish the subway would directly take people to the airport, or alternatively for passenger fees to cover the AirTrain entirely. Not sure why the AirTrain should exist as a separate-fare system.

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I've seen the terms used in confusing ways (a lot of people call the outdoor dinning facilities sidewalk sheds) and may have not been careful in my own usage.

Huh? The sheds are there to allow for outdoor dining. They get more space for customers, customers get to have a cool experience, parking spots might be eliminated. Win-win-win.

If they're citizens of voting age they must be able to vote. Regardless of how one feels about other issues around them.

C-level execs are actually not necessarily all that clued.

Good. However well meaning the nonprofit, it is a really bad idea to have non lawyers doing this.

In this war I'm hoping Israel and the US suffer an embarrassing and high-cost defeat.

Otherwise we're all just mostly guessing a lot of the time on what parts of our own experience is relatively common or more distinctive to us, and it can lead to missing out on good conversations.

that it gives one license to ask a lot more questions without sounding like a horrible snob. Maybe that is a way through this.