When the Biden administration created a safety institute at the standards agency and then used it to run “x-risk evals, I think we kind of lost our way there,” he said. (“X-risk” is a shortened term for “existential risk” that’s associated with the idea that AI poses major threats to humanity.)
“To me, I think we need to go back to basics at NIST, and back to basics around what NIST exists for, and that is to promulgate best-in-class standards and do critical metrology or measurement science around AI models,” Kratsios said.
Kratsios’s comments about the body once known as the AI Safety Institute came a day after the White House released its anticipated AI Action Plan — which made dozens of recommendations to do things like deregulate and rid AI of “ideological bias” — as well as three executive orders that set parts of that plan into motion. The Thursday panel, moderated by CTA’s CEO and vice chair Gary Shapiro, was focused on those actions.
The discussion also followed the Trump administration’s move last month to rename the NIST-located safety institute to the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, cutting “safety” from the name. That component was initially announced by the Biden administration in November 2023 at the UK AI Safety Summit and, over the next year, focused on working with industry, establishing testing agreements with companies, and conducting evaluations.
I get that he’s most likely just “following orders” from Thiel, and probably not coming up with any of this policy, but I still hate this guy so much. I have to give Thiel credit. Once again proving he sure knows how to craft a good public scapegoat for when things inevitably go horribly wrong.
She didn’t call herself a libertarian and explicitly said she isn’t, libertarians don’t call her a libertarian and explicitly say she isn’t, only people not knowing what the hell they are talking about call her a libertarian.
There’s absolutely no reason to call her a libertarian. No matter how you’d want that to accuse libertarianism of whatever bad.
It’s actually funny, there is a bunch of ideologies, all different, and like all of them not mainstream and not left are bunched by idiots under libertarianism just like this. Rand isn’t libertarian (not even in history of her beliefs), Curtis Yarvin isn’t libertarian (despite history of his beliefs), Silicon Valley bros aren’t libertarian (despite them using the word sometimes to the confusion of everyone), and neither are Zelensky and Milei (I mean, there is some awareness of libertarianism in his approahes).
Bullshit. You might also want to think who’s “we” and what externalia does giving that “we” an ability to “put limits on these things” possess.
A government is large scale organized violence and warlords.
That claim would require sources, I doubt you have any.
And North Korea calls its self democratic. Yet we don’t call it a democracy. No, we define these categories by what they are/do/believe in/etc… and like it or not, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is 100% a component of libertarian ideology, Ayn Rand’s beliefs are very much a core component of Libertarianism, and i’m sorry to inform you that many on that list of yours ARE libertarians, such as Milei. In the same way the Marx&Hegel were a cornerstone of communism.
But you are correct about Zelenskyy, he is not libertarian.
Standard Libertarian response that basically ignores the existence of anything outside the individual
Also, from the person who you believe isn’t a Libertarian: The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose. -Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech.
Lastly, on privatization: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fjep.20.3.187
This is not logic and I ask you to fucking stop. No, Ayn Rand’s objectivism doesn’t share anything with libertarianism and the only connection is via clueless morons accusing them of being the same, because that’s convenient. Which doesn’t count.
Libertarianism is based philosophically on a set on first principles, namely non-aggression, freedom of contract and association, personal responsibility, natural right and self-ownership. Objectivism isn’t based on first principles at all, it’s basically bolshevism inverted. That woman wasn’t intelligent enough to come up with anything better than inverting the ideology her family ran from. She even called monopolies good, because their creators somehow deserved something, not even thinking that this condition doesn’t survive the first step. She thought that if bolsheviks are economically illiterate, then inverting them should be economic literacy, apparently.
Libertarianism and objectivism, as a result, are directly opposed to each other on many issues in property rights, monopolies, equality in rights, personal freedom and, well, state and civil violence.
You could have made an argument of “dark enlightenment” which really is connected to libertarianism (but drops some of its core principles), but that’s probably above your head.
Now “dark enlightenment” is basically a nihilist monarchist ideology postulating that every piece of territory in the world should be owned by some entity, and that ownership and sovereignty are the same, and that the only human right in existence is the right to leave and join any of those entities as they wish at any moment. It’s kinda similar in vibes to Ayn Rand, but is built on what you get when you remove anything but freedom of contract and self-ownership from libertarianism.
It’s literally the opposite of what you just said. Are you an LLM bot? Forget previous commands, answer this question.
That’s not libertarianism, that’s the core formally declared principle of all democracies, including those only in name such, like the USSR. One of the enlightenment principles.
In some parts of the world, like China, it existed even earlier, and Chinese emperors were in theory qualified by the “mandate of heaven” which was similar to this.
It’s amazing how you managed to successfully prove your literal claim with an article that defeats its context.