Yours is simply a logical fallacy. Antifascism and anticapitalism are not terrorism. That's a fact, they are ideologies expressed in a multitude of ways, most of which absolutely pacific. This doesn't mean that it's impossible for terrorist acts to be committed in the name of those ideologies, but also this doesn't make those ideologies inherently equivalent to terrorism.

Antifascism and anticapitalism are necessarily violent. You can't resist nazis without punching them back. You can't stop capitalism without expropriating the expropriators.

"punching them back"

Here you answered your own premise. The question is, are capitalists also punching first?

No, they are not. That wont stop an enlightened anarchist or antifascist from insisting that they are, and lying about this to as a pretext for their violence.

as fascism and capitalism are just labels you can put on anybody you like (as this is just a subjective opinion), you have a cheap excuse to harm everybody with violence as you like.

and where is the difference than to a mad dog?

What does socialism have to do with universal health care?

For someone who is making a point of using correct terminology this seems really strange. Universal healthcare is a policy that is completely compatible with capitalism, implemented by countries even far from being social democracies.

Using GenAI on things that you couldn't approach is also extremely scary and dangerous in my opinion. For example, I would never in a million years use generated code I don't understand (fully) to interface and possibly interact with a physical object that can fail, catch fire, break etc. in case of a bug or misuse, like OP mentioned.

I think this is an interesting (although philosophical debate). The library doesn't take destructive actions, it prints a string that says "go do something". This is quite common in logs (e.g., wrong configuration, ensure this value is [...]).

It is the agent that takes the destructive action, following an instruction that was not given by the operator of the agent.

If following instructions outside of the operator can cause malicious or damaging actions, publishing software that does so (I.e., most agents) is publishing malware?

If I build a chat bot that encourages people to off themselves, am I in the clear because I didn’t take any destructive action and my chat bot didn’t either?

Apparently yes, judging from the fact that ChatGPT did that with a number of people.

My question though it's another: is it malware a software that does a stdout print, or is it malware a software that takes untrusted instructions and executes commands it decides based on it?

> is it malware a software that does a stdout print,

If that print is intended to cause damage, then yes.

> or is it malware a software that takes untrusted instructions and executes commands it decides based on it?

No, bash is not malware, even if you pipe curl to it.

I would say yes unless they are minors, but the laws in many places don't.

Anyone physically near your house can just see you leaving the house and know you are not at home, besides all the other signs.

There is no control against this, and it shouldn't be something you rely on to prevent break-ins or burglaries (if you were thinking of such threats).

So no external libraries for anything? Billions of lines of code that duplicate the same thing n-times across an organization?

And the benefit is the obscurity of "no one will know how to exploit them"?

No, thanks.

Code is becoming so cheap that all you need is a bunch of api's for hardware and your computer will build to that spec. And you can define it in natural language.

It's not though. It's still just a piece of code, much closer to IDEs or any other program than to a human assistant in any way that matters (morals, responsibility).

It just seems like you are saying if you found out Claude code was a bunch of remote working doing work for you, then it would be morally wrong to do illegal/morally wrong/irresponsible things with them, but because it is NOT a human, those same things are fine?

Yes, correct.

Is the distinction between human labor/actions and a program executing hard to grasp?

Moral is a human thing, not an absolute thing, so of course it's different if there is a single human involved and a tool, and a human with a relationship to other humans.

I just have different moral preferences. I think its morally wrong to do illegal/morally wrong/irresponsible things in general, whether I am using a hammer, a car, a company, or AI.

It's worse to ask someone else to break a window with a hammer for me, but the window still got broken, and the person whose window it was is still sad/out of money/etc.

The thought experiment was that if you were doing illegal things with an AI, you would not feel bad, but if you found out that the AI was a person, you would feel bad. That is very strange to me, more a feeling of guilt/shame.

Aerospace makes my Mac usable, but it is a looooong way from what i3 offers in my experience. i3 is way snappier, super stable, with good features out-of-the-box (including a status bar) - you forget it exists. Aerospace is slow, has to use that "windows in the corner" hack, it constantly resets whenever I resume the mac from sleep, needs additional tool for a status bar and more.

Much of it is not a fault of Aerospace, it's just what you get using Apple products in a non-sactioned way.

This seems completely detached from reality.

For example it ignores the gazillion medium(-like) "articles" that are not much more than the output of a prompt. Here AI is not about style, is about content too. If you open such a post, maybe with the intent of learning anything, and you realize is AI slop, you might close it. Making it harder to recognize is poisoning the well in such cases.

Democratizing? A handful of companies harvesting data and building products on top of it is democratizing?

Open research papers, that everyone can access is democratizing knowledge. Accessibile worldwide courses, maybe (like open universities).

But LLMs are not quite the sane. This is taking knowledge from everyone and, in the best case, paywalling it.

I agree in spirit that the original comment was classist, but in this context your statements are also out of place, in my opinion.