Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline contains the wrong answer, for those astute enough to see it, especially those more so than this op-ed‘s opinion writer, Judd Rosenblatt, who is the CEO of AE Studio and president of the AI Alignment Foundation:

The key is “alignment,” which improves capability while cordoning off dangerous knowledge.

Rosenblatt expanded on that not too much later in his piece:

…build the world’s most capable open-weight model in America, with the dangerous capabilities stripped out before release

Because nothing says limiting innovation and truncating freedom like censoring knowledge and capability. Never mind that that will limit and truncate only American innovation and knowledge; it’ll have no effect on our enemies.

He went on:

Using GRAM [Gradient-Routed Auxiliary Modules] to train language models, we found that knowledge about bioweapons, offensive cyber, and nuclear capabilities, and even antisemitism, could be routed into compartments, then removed. The released model behaved as if it never learned that information.
…
What matters is a safety standard that causes a dangerous capability to stay absent under adversarial testing.

The bioweapons, offensive cyber, and nuclear capabilities bits are seemingly obvious targets for censorship, but that knowledge is too easily compiled via a variety of sources, including other AI models that aren’t restricted. The real kicker, though, is that last: who gets to define what is a dangerous capability? And who sets the threshold between random data to information to knowledge? Will these Know Better definers decide that identifying or not defining hate speech (whatever that is) is a dangerous capability and the thresholds for that? Providing arguments for, or against, human involvement in global warming? Men in girls’ sports and bath- and locker rooms? Defining “woman?” Criticizing government? This list is endless.

The blatant…foolishness…of Rosenblatt’s idea makes me wonder about trolls and moles.

DSA and Government Structure

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal editors are rightly worried about the ascendancy of the Democratic Socialists of America. The center of their concern rests on DSA intent to restructure our government:

…replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

Sure. Parliament, with its largely figurehead House of Lords, and Parliamentary Superiority vis-a-vis the British courts has worked so well for the UK.

Similarly, the Duma and the National People’s Congress have done so much for the people of Russia and the PRC.

The DSA isn’t about “radical change” for the sake of us average Americans; it’s about a naked grab for party political power–which is to say a naked grab for personal power for those persons atop the DSA. That the bulk of the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians are silent or openly supportive of DSA goals shows how thoroughly Party has chosen to absorb the DSA into its core (or, the other side of that coin: how thoroughly the DSA has coopted Party). The only Party members who are beginning to object to the DSA are on Party’s far right–that fringe group who are Establishment Democrats.

The contest for power within Party is one that legacy Party politicians—those Establishment Democrats—think they can win. They’re likely wrong on that. Keep in mind, in this intraparty power struggle the DSA leadership has made no bones about their candidates running on the Progressive-Democratic Party ticket. It’s a ballot line, and nothing more. DSA plans to supplant the Progressive-Democratic Party, whether by absorption or by replacement.

Denying Visas

Posted on by
Reply

When a person, whether private or a government official, applies for a visa to come into the United States, the fact of his application clearly means he has not entered our nation; he’s still outside of it.

That brings up Chief Judge (DC District) James Boasberg’s ruling regarding the administration’s denial of visas to foreign officials and other foreign nationals considered responsible for or complicit in suppressing American free speech.

Boasberg ruled that the administration’s reason constituted viewpoint discrimination and so was a First Amendment violation of the applicants’ free speech rights. He dressed up his opinion with this:

The policy [to deny visas to those considered responsible for or complicit in suppressing American free speech], at its core, does not burden all speech about platforms, all research into content moderation, or all advocacy about online harms. It presses its enforcement thumb against one side of the scale: the view that platforms should do more to moderate content, label disinformation, restrict abuse, share data with researchers, or take responsibility for the harms their systems amplify.

The problem with Boasberg’s position is that those folks, being outside our nation, have no US constitutional (or any statutory) rights whatsoever. His argument is, thus, nothing more than a cynically offered non sequitur.

Boasberg’s rationalization is all too typical of the hysterically anti-Trump bias in his rulings.

“Socialism’s Slippery Definitions”

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline makes it plain:

The hard left is whatever it needs to be at the moment.

That’s certainly the case for the Left and for far too many others. The even plainer fact, though, is that there’s nothing slippery about American English dictionary and textbooks written in American English definitions of socialism. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production—government ownership of an economy’s businesses—from which flows government determination of what to produce, allocation of that output, and determination of the wages involved. All because, hold socialists, government knows better than any of us how to determine what to produce, how to allocate that output, and how to determine the wages involved.

All of the rest, those slippery definitions, are simply taken from the Left’s Newspeak Dictionary. Those slippery definitions, too, are little more than a variety of labels used to obscure. Democratic socialism, social democracy, even communism (itself misused in such discussions) are used only to create artificial definitions, as Matthew Hennessey noted in his article at the link, to suit the moment.

It’s unfortunate that our education systems, up through graduate school, fail to make clear which of those competing definitions is the accurate one.

It’s unfortunate, and dangerous to our economy and so to our national security, that one of our political parties actively and enthusiastically trades on those false definitions of the Newspeak Dictionary in its own push to inflict socialism, that government control of the engines of our economy, on our nation.

Foolish Move

Posted on by
1

Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R, SC) has introduced legislation that would make illegal formation of House caucuses organized around race, ethnicity, or national origin.

If adopted, the measure would effectively force the dissolution of Democrat-aligned groups, including the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.
The proposal could also affect GOP-affiliated organizations, including the Black Republican Congressional Staff Association, the GOP Latino Staff Association, and the Republican Asian American Staff Association.

It’s a nice idea, blocking race-based organizations and the like in the House. Mace’s argument is straightforward and entirely legitimate.

Race-based caucuses are not diversity. They are federally sanctioned segregation. You do not get to lecture America about inclusion while running an organization which checks your skin color at the door. The hypocrisy ends now.
It is time to end taxpayer-funded discrimination in this institution[.]

There is, though, no way to enforce the intent of the thing, even were the legislation to pass. The caucuses won’t disappear. The groups will just continue to meet informally in glorified coffee klatches and therewith continue to coordinate legislative proposal and votes. Nothing material will change.