The Trump administration recently published “America’s AI Action Plan”. One of the first policy actions from the document is to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change from the NIST’s AI Risk Framework.
Lacking any sense of irony, the very next point states LLM developers should ensure their systems are “objective and free from top-down ideological bias”.
Par for the course for Trump and his cronies, but the world should know what kind of AI the US wants to build.
That…what???
No, your choice of phrasing conveys your message.
If you’re argument is not against the American people, but rather the administration, then your wording is, well, wrong.
How do you refer to the machinations of a state?
No. You’re dodging the argument. You chose to phrase it that way. And pretending that’s just some incidental thing with no meaning honestly is about the dumbest response I’ve seen in a while.
You have made the argument that it is the American people, not the administration. You. Not anybody else.
I did not use the phrase “the American people”.
Wow.
Just…wow.
You honestly think that’s an argument?!?
Goodbye
Based on your post history, I think we’re on the same side. I understand that this administration does not represent all of America. Unfortunately though, the semantics of it all don’t really matter. Trump got the majority vote, and that’s what matters. The effects of his policies matter. From the perspective of the rest of the world, this is what (the majority of) America has chosen. I don’t like it either.
Friend, seriously…listen to the very clear reason being used to explain the deficiency of your argument here.
The way you phrase something absolutely changes the meaning of its point. You can’t say something and then try to justify that the ends are the same, so it’s cool. Literally why people use the phrase “the ends don’t justify the means”.
If Trump comes out and says some dumb shit, you can’t just say “AMERICA WANTS THIS”, because that is obviously untrue.
It would work the same way with 4 people in a car, and the driver wants hamburgers. The entire car doesn’t want hamburgers, just the driver of the car. How you want to argue the outcome or explanation of that very much decides on how you intend to phrase the situation. All you know right now is that the driver wants a hamburger, so it would disingenuous to say everyone wants hamburgers.
You need to realize how insanely defensive you’re being. Why? For what?
Think about what you’re arguing for for a second: America doesn’t want AI, only Trump’s administration does. Is this not all of politics?
“America doesn’t want free health care, only some of its democrats do.”
“America doesn’t want ranked choice voting, lots of people in Wyoming hate ranking things. And math.”
“America doesn’t want gay marriage, there are still lots of people really upset about that supreme court ruling.”
You’re drawing a scenario in which “America” can’t actually “want” anything because no one ever agrees on who America is.
I’m being competely serious: you need to unwrap your ego from all this. This isn’t about you. ICE raids aren’t your—you specifically—your fault. No one is saying it is.
America is a really, really big machine, and sometimes it does things I don’t like. Sometimes it does things I do. You know what I mean?
I think it’s nice that many Americans don’t want what Trump wants. I think it’s unfortunate that in this case it doesn’t actually have an effect because the policy will be acted upon anyway.
Sure. Right. Like the straws, and the Trans in athletic events, and the flights from undesirable countries, and the “Gulf of America”.
Get with reality here.
I disagree with that premise, America elected Trump under a democracy in which his view points were clear. He was elected to represent Americans and as such I think it’s fair to use Trump’s wants and America synonymously
No. America did not, and if you’ve been keeping track, he lost the popular vote by a huge margin the first time (which included insane amounts of election interference), and only “won” by 1.6% the second time, and only because of very specific gerrymandering and hoop jumping.
Saying that’s a clear direction for an entire country is fucking insane. Like if I have $0.51 I might as well have a dollar. It’s just an insane argument.