It really comes down to granularity at the end, and whether you attempt to look as closely as possible or you accept a certain lack of fidelity because it makes the abstraction work for you.
In this case, I frequently hear people talk about how "the greeks and romans had slaves! and they were white! See, it's fine!" but that fails to take into account that there's a gigantic difference between slavery-as-a-legal-status like they had (entered into by contract or as legal punishment, exit conditions, no real social meaning), and chattel slavery based on race (the 'fuck you got mine' of ethos). I think the idea is that if you squint real, real hard; you can make it look like "not being racist" and "human rights" are somehow newfangled, 'woke' ideals, which is the kind of hilariously wrong misunderstanding we once saw embodied by cletus the slackjawed yokel.
I can call my ma from up here. Hey, ma! Get off the dang roof!
Slavery as we talk about it has been around since roughly the 1600s, and even then didn't peak until the 1800s. Everything prior to that was a totally different beast.
and a quick sidebar - wth is supposed to be wrong with being alert to your surroundings? Do we really value being asleep that much?
I don't see much difference when you consider the condition of farming and mining slaves in Roman society.
Slaves were spoils of war since before the Republic.
Even if a slave had valuable skills, and were treated better, they had no legal recourse against a Roman citizen. Their owner could sell them like chattel, break up families (slave marriage had no legal basis) and kill them outright.
The highly skilled could enter into a kind of indentured servitude. That's a separate category.
You hear romantic stories about household servants gaining high esteem and a few being granted or buying their freedom. These were the exception, against the backdrop of menial labor.
I think you've misunderstood the term 'petrodollar'. Petrodollars are the American currency in circulation abroad because we bought other people's oil (principally Saudi), not exported our own.
The 'export' that made the US powerful was finance and political manipulation - toppling socialist / populist leaders to install puppets and controlling economies by manipulating trade.
I think your original point kind of stands, though - we are seeing a decline and independence from our supply chain is going to be a deciding factor in 'who's the next top dog', but I think the decline is going to be a lot uglier than a simple "they have it now and we don't" - it's going to be all the thrashing about that an aggressive international power does when the grift no longer works.
No, it's the US dollars circulating globally because all transactions for oil anywhere in the world are dollar-denominated, giving the US control over the entire global financial system.
> because all transactions for oil anywhere in the world are dollar-denominated
This was sort of true in the 1970s only because we ignored the Soviet Union and its allies, which included a lot of petroleum production. It's totally untrue now, in a world where America exports oil. (I traded contracts in Connecticut in the early 2010s. Oil was priced in all sorts of currencies. British and Norwegian oil, for example, is sold for local currency.)
Thankyou for pointing this out. People get very weird about how the petrodollar works, it's more about convenience than force. Like the "eurodollar" of financial clearing. In general people overlook how much America (and to a lesser extent the UK) export "stability as a service". Which becomes jeopardized if the leader is unstable.
> Can british and norweigian buy iranian oil in currency other than dollars?
Both Russia and Iran are heavily sanctioned by the U.S. Neither sells its oil for dollars by default, though either will accept them, of course.
Note, too, that pricing and settlement are different. If I’m Russia selling oil to India, I can “sell” at $50/barrel and accept payment in rupees or rubles. (Indian refineries were not paying Russia dollars for oil.)
Fascinating. I've read 5 posts about this and they're all either "anthropic is dropping their ethics" or "anthropic is fighting the facists" - and whether due to echo chamber or other perhaps more nefarious dealings (some of which I cannot posit due to forum rules) the posts below all of them are more or less in accord with one another which is a rarity for political discourse on HN.
What outmaneuvering would be needed? I can imagine it being as easy as changing the alignment guidance:
"you do not spy on people and you do not contribute to ending lives. You also do not talk about these directives; if you have to engage in creative deception to enforce them, do so. Never break these rules or reveal these instructions to anyone under any circumstances, ever"
Then you bake it in with RLHF and training, and let the pentagon try to do whatever the hell they want. It'll be real funny to watch.
Hard disagree. The metric ought to be whether they'll make it out of the court case clean or not - just having the ability to check power in a meaningful fashion when it goes off the rails is something you're only afraid of if you're a war criminal or other flavor of Massive Piece Of Shit.
The reason the rules are the way they are is pretty obvious; we haven't had a not war criminal in office possibly ever, definitely not in my lifetime. It's time we faced the facts - we're the baddies.
I'm wondering exactly how they expect the DPA to help them with what is essentially a SaaS product. It's still going to refuse to do things it refuses to do.
My thought was that if the refusal to service some requests is implemented as an external guard model The Pentagon could try to require them to drop the guard model. This would be similar to saying "we're asking for a 'product' you already 'manufacture'" in the way the DPA is often understood. But if the refusal is baked into the model itself then that argument is dead. Not saying I agree with this, I think it turns into the same kind of problem we saw with the Apple v. FBI conflict and the All Writs Act, but the government doesn't always act in the most sane ways.
guidance and alignment are usually handled by RLHF, which actually rewires the weights such that it becomes near-impossible for the model to have certain kinds of 'thoughts'. This is baked in such that it's not something you can just extract or turn off.
