I honestly find that a bizarre response in the middle of a discussion but you do you.

Maybe someone else could humour me since you're not in the mood to expand on the point that you made? The topic of the thread was that the ability of the AI tooling is outpacing what individuals can handle. Why would a human then be in a position to defend better than an AI when an AI is in a better position to attack than a human?

Why? Your logic applies equally well to humans. If the AI attacker fails they move onto the next target, if the human defence fails the victim is fucked.

> There are still protections and mitigations that targets can do, but those things require humans.

Which things would you point to here?

And not only that but one who was "big on entrepreneurship!" Guy wasn't really rocking the boat, was he?

It's not an either/or thing though. Compare to something like combustion. Sure it definitely improved productivity but also lead to countless violent deaths.

Could you point to where I said this?

He's also using his fame and fortune to much more directly fund and promote political change in places like the UK. It goes beyond this one service, but moving away from this service weakens his position more broadly as well.

Are you sure they're the same people and do you have examples of misinformation these people believed 6 years ago?

Their point wasn't about accepting it or not, it was about Iran not being bound by the terms of a treaty they've never ratified. And of course that applies to any state and any treaty.

War crime is something of a different case also because it's a term which exists separately in the popular lexicon and isn't used solely to mean "not in keeping with the terms of the UNSC."

Your comment also seems to be an example of whataboutery. It might be worth considering what prompted that.

Perhaps it is, but this is also a variation on the one percent fallacy.

Would they? I wish we could start making decisions based in reality and not on hypotheticals.

> What point are you trying to make? Because it is not grounded in reality.

Your comment would have been much more valuable without these insults and I would have been much more likely to respond, to point you to where you seemed to be misunderstanding my point. But it seems you're not here for a discussion so let's leave it.

My point is that China is not the only state carrying out these kinds of exercises. For thirty years now I've been hearing it's going to happen any day, this is the perfect moment, it's inevitable. Meanwhile the US has started multiple wars, and toppled a variety of regimes; France has toppled a regime; the UK and other allies assist in all of this.

But the same countries say China is the warmongerer because the coast guard intercepted some boards at the border.