I think Anthropic did the right thing to report it due to valid safety concerns. And if they had found credible plans for her to attack I think she can be charged with attempt. But just using AI as a diary I think the prosecutor's office is reaching beyond what the law allows but unfortunately I think there is a possibility that she may be convicted.

First you don't know what the parents political leaning is. They may be conservative, they may also just as likely be liberal It's foolish to assume their political leanings from just one post just because you disagree with them.

Second they're not saying that in groups or open AI should not be bound by the law. They're saying open AI did not actually break the law. You're free to disagree and explain why you disagree. That would be welcome. But calling them a conservative and saying they think the rich shouldn't be bound by the law is ridiculous

Assyrians were extremely successful and they would commit random murder of their subject population.

I guess you can hold a mirror to just modern civilization and say western civilization... If you forget the racism and sexism of the 20th century... Which leaves the current society and if you're saying the society you live in is the most enlightened and progressive well I mean that sounds like the definition of bias

I can see how Islam being designed as a state religion can be tied to power structures. Perhaps there is an argument that Hinduism supported feudal social structures. Other than that, the idea that religion is closely tied to power structures seems to be questionable and weakly supported. Was shamanic belief tied to the power of chiefs in ancient tribes? I don't think so. Buddha was a prince but it seems tenuous to say that buddhist monks somehow supported royal power in the East. I could go on. . .

I think it's easy to shout free healthcare as a slogan but I think the important bit is how it's implemented.

Also we know in the past there were dargonflys with wingspans greater than 2 feet and centipedes that grew as long as a car.

Easy the philosophers Plato and Socrates who believed that only philosophers and those who sought wisdom should have a say in the affairs of the sate. I mean philosophy is full of ideas of how nations should be organized and it's interesting because there's no dogma around it and no villainizing disagreements

>e "nipping dangerous ideas in the bud" language relates to those ideas being implemented, not being discussed.

Great because last I checked Tobais Lutke was discussing the idea not implementing it

In my opinion the real trend towards totalitarianism is inability to talk freely about ideas

It's easy and popular to talk about how important democracy or voting rights are. And that makes it a bit annoying because it deprives the possibility of freely exploring other ideas. There's no possibility of free speech or free exchange of ideas so long as portion of the population thinks we have to immediately nip dangerous ideas in the bud without exploration.

Simply saying a confounding variable was missing isn't helpful because it's impossible to control for all confounding variables.

If however there was an important variable someone can think of, like maybe parents who control their kids phone use could also be more involved in their children's learning that could be a confounding variable worth mentioning to think about how valid the study is - but even then I don't know if that by itself would be enough to dismiss the study

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArriveCAN