The Pentagon wants unlimited access to the most powerful AI systems. Anthropic said no. The question that remains is whether democracy can survive either answer.
of every tech thats ever rolled out, If there a single poster child for the desirability of it rolling out in a legal/regulatory variable and policy variable environment, AI may very well be it
there is contradiction in the essay, you write "But it unfolds equally within a constitutional republic, in which the state holds, by democratic mandate.... is absorbed into the sphere of sovereignty. It no longer belongs to Silicon Valley. It belongs to the state." But that is not a democratic conceptualization of sovereignty, the collective citizens hold sovereignty, the state is their agent
Forgive me, but I believe you have quoted passages from my newsletter inaccurately.
I explicitly state that the state has sovereignty over the use of force:
“But it unfolds equally within a constitutional republic, in which the state holds, by democratic mandate, the monopoly on the use of force.”
At the same time, I conclude by saying that citizens must remain sovereign:
“It is whether citizens can continue to call themselves sovereign when those same models are deployed without effective counterweights in the name of their protection.”
I don't think I ever wrote that sovereignty should belong to the state.
Yes, I see you did write “a constitutional republic, in which the state holds, by democratic mandate, the monopoly on the use of force”, I should have registered that with myself, so if I was inaccurate then I apologize. Yes, I would that what I see to be your point in essay is a huge risk in these regards because for something as vast and frequent in scale while being micro in operation across so many, possibly most all to one degree or another, endeavors as AI, well, once state primacy enters effect there is a risk that it turns into state as principal all on its own, at some point after that it may be that the state no longer just administers sovereignty, it embodies it, at which point almost all real discretion and decision making will move away from the citizenry.
I very much agree with this point. At the same time, it is not an issue exclusive to the United States—which, with the latest Supreme Court rulings, has demonstrated that constitutional checks and balances do work.
The same issue can be extended to countries such as China or Russia, which are not so concerned with checks and balances on executive power.
I *might* disagree re China, I say might because Xi and Co in the national center have been working hard in recent years to centralize and de-democratize (in regards to governance structures) the system, but in recent months rhetoric from China's center suggests that they at least havent gotten all the way yet (stuff like "we need a strong national bank" and then gives some details on what they mean regs wise, things like "we need harmonized regulations" and then gives details, etc; well that suggests they dont have them now and they need to argue for them so. Bug from the 1980s until now or at least recently its been a widely and deeply federated system with legal/regulatory variability and policy variability and local areas revenues and fiscal dominance
RE America, there was a whole lot more to our checks and balances than what we have now and what are defended now...
You write about "sovereignty" and "constitutional crisis," but the premise is flawed. The United States is not a nation; it is an empire. The sovereignty discussion is best left to poets and idealists. Because within the empire, everything belongs to the Emperor. If I, a baker, bake bread and Caesar demands the loaf for his army, do I negotiate? Or do I render to Caesar what is Caesar's?
Anthropic's seemingly "principled stand" is not a defense of democratic values; it is a provincial misunderstanding of who holds title to the province. The Pentagon's response to revoke contracts, brand the company a risk is but a light slap. The empire reminds the workshop that it was never truly private, that it was only permitted to manage itself and does so , at the pleasure of Emperor.
Let us not speak of ghosts and spirits which never were. Not today. Not while the emperor's legions are once again engaged in battle with noble men in distant lands, who too speak of sovereignty, men who claim a moral defense, when we both know that within the empire, sovereignty is an illusion, and morality but a means for deception.
of every tech thats ever rolled out, If there a single poster child for the desirability of it rolling out in a legal/regulatory variable and policy variable environment, AI may very well be it
there is contradiction in the essay, you write "But it unfolds equally within a constitutional republic, in which the state holds, by democratic mandate.... is absorbed into the sphere of sovereignty. It no longer belongs to Silicon Valley. It belongs to the state." But that is not a democratic conceptualization of sovereignty, the collective citizens hold sovereignty, the state is their agent
Forgive me, but I believe you have quoted passages from my newsletter inaccurately.
I explicitly state that the state has sovereignty over the use of force:
“But it unfolds equally within a constitutional republic, in which the state holds, by democratic mandate, the monopoly on the use of force.”
At the same time, I conclude by saying that citizens must remain sovereign:
“It is whether citizens can continue to call themselves sovereign when those same models are deployed without effective counterweights in the name of their protection.”
I don't think I ever wrote that sovereignty should belong to the state.
Yes, I see you did write “a constitutional republic, in which the state holds, by democratic mandate, the monopoly on the use of force”, I should have registered that with myself, so if I was inaccurate then I apologize. Yes, I would that what I see to be your point in essay is a huge risk in these regards because for something as vast and frequent in scale while being micro in operation across so many, possibly most all to one degree or another, endeavors as AI, well, once state primacy enters effect there is a risk that it turns into state as principal all on its own, at some point after that it may be that the state no longer just administers sovereignty, it embodies it, at which point almost all real discretion and decision making will move away from the citizenry.
I very much agree with this point. At the same time, it is not an issue exclusive to the United States—which, with the latest Supreme Court rulings, has demonstrated that constitutional checks and balances do work.
The same issue can be extended to countries such as China or Russia, which are not so concerned with checks and balances on executive power.
I *might* disagree re China, I say might because Xi and Co in the national center have been working hard in recent years to centralize and de-democratize (in regards to governance structures) the system, but in recent months rhetoric from China's center suggests that they at least havent gotten all the way yet (stuff like "we need a strong national bank" and then gives some details on what they mean regs wise, things like "we need harmonized regulations" and then gives details, etc; well that suggests they dont have them now and they need to argue for them so. Bug from the 1980s until now or at least recently its been a widely and deeply federated system with legal/regulatory variability and policy variability and local areas revenues and fiscal dominance
RE America, there was a whole lot more to our checks and balances than what we have now and what are defended now...
Dario is a con man. Anyone suggesting he’s a billionaire with a heart of gold is just plain silly.
Anthropic was spun out of Open ai. Which was spun out of Lawrence labs BAIR program and Google Brain.
Amazon, Google, and Microsoft own both open ai and Anthropic. This is so basic it’s silly anyone can fall for the theater.
It reminds me of zuck cage fighting fatboy Musk. How many of you fall for this WWF reality show?
You write about "sovereignty" and "constitutional crisis," but the premise is flawed. The United States is not a nation; it is an empire. The sovereignty discussion is best left to poets and idealists. Because within the empire, everything belongs to the Emperor. If I, a baker, bake bread and Caesar demands the loaf for his army, do I negotiate? Or do I render to Caesar what is Caesar's?
Anthropic's seemingly "principled stand" is not a defense of democratic values; it is a provincial misunderstanding of who holds title to the province. The Pentagon's response to revoke contracts, brand the company a risk is but a light slap. The empire reminds the workshop that it was never truly private, that it was only permitted to manage itself and does so , at the pleasure of Emperor.
Let us not speak of ghosts and spirits which never were. Not today. Not while the emperor's legions are once again engaged in battle with noble men in distant lands, who too speak of sovereignty, men who claim a moral defense, when we both know that within the empire, sovereignty is an illusion, and morality but a means for deception.