AwesomeLowlander

Fair enough! That’s exciting news

The warnings are self-serving, not the AI

Due process means the law was fairly applied and their rights were respected. I agree and understand that a govt program does not mean this is the case. In the absence of any countervailing evidence however, that would be the default assumption.

The interviews published were hand selected, the articles are very biased. I’ll sumerize a different way, only 3 of the 100 kids taken from their parents did not speak poorly about their experience.

I agree with you there. The kids are not under a gag order though. Is there any other article or source that indicates a different situation from the one described here?

No, you’re the one who started with the assumptions. The correct behaviour is to make no assumptions and wait for the legal system to sort things out.

Jeez, I can’t believe I’m having to explain this to a mod on one of the biggest communities on lemmy.

So what you’re saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!

There was no due process to kidnap the kids. Part of the parents sentence was not loss of custody.

Source? It’s an official govt program being run by a judge. Not even those opposing the program are claiming it’s against the law, they’re just saying it’s a bad idea.

If you look at history the state has been a much more terrible guardian.

Worse than grooming the kids to be crime lords? It’s a closely scrutinised program, and nobody’s calling shenanigans on the implementation, not even the kids being interviewed. It might not work out, that’s true, but I am not seeing a reason that it would be a definite failure.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

If it helps, I agreed with your 1st 2 points. You may die with your dignity half intact.

“Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity”

The full quote is “UNLIKE self-serving warnings from Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity”. In other words, they’re actively denigrating Musk and Altman, and you’ve taken the quote entirely out of context, in direct opposite to the original meaning.

? It’s not open source, AFAIK.

No no, I mean, I get your point about how most corps do try to keep up with regulations. But some bad apples certainly spoil the batch. Even within corps I’m sure there are differences from one dept to another.

It astounding that you can’t think of why government kidnapping is a bad thing. They have no right to take kids from homes because they want to “tame the savages”.

Did you miss my big, big disclaimer? “excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent”.

In the case under discussion, the parents are convicted major criminals, there’s a big difference from targeting a certain race. I do agree it’s a potential slippery slope.

It’s not morality to teach kids about all the options they can choose to earn a living.

You can teach the kids their options, but the home environment obviously exerts a greater influence, especially if they are brought up to glorify it.

I have a serious, non-rhetorical question that I’m honestly interested in an answer to. Given that the parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence? This question is specific to this situation, not about the potential for abuse of the law in other situations. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I appreciate hypothetical discussions.

Another option is to imprison mafia members, it’s much more difficult to influence children from prison.

The mafia have been managing it for generations, so that option obviously doesn’t work.

Education is probably the best, showing kids they have better options will do wonders.

We’ve had this discussion many times, though from the opposite side. School and education is for teaching kids facts and about the world, but they do not (nor should they) have the capacity to be substitute parents. And that’s for neglectful parents, much less parents who are actively teaching the kids negative values.

All in all, excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent, I’m not sure why this is such a bad thing. The parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence?

The obvious difference I’m seeing (at least based on the article) is that the US and Canadian systems were woefully underfunded and overwhelmed. Whereas this program has a small number of participants and seems fairly well supported. Time will tell I suppose.

Like I said, it’s a tough question. I agree it’s very much a grey area, but I do think it’s better than leaving things to continue the way they have been up to now.

Just because they’re mafioso doesn’t mean they mistreat their children.

It’s not about child abuse, it’s about ending the intergenerational crime cycle. Though depending on your viewpoint it could be argued that raising kids by grooming them to be crime lords is a form of child abuse in itself.

I would think that the doing something would be breaking that bond by arresting the parents

From the article:

Now, almost every member of the girls’ immediate family is in prison: both of their parents and three of their four brothers.

Yes

It’s a tough question. Doing nothing obviously just leaves the cycle to perpetuate itself, and there really aren’t that many ways to break the cycle. From the article, it seems like the govt is at least putting resources into making sure the kids are cared for.

Ah. Probably the difference between the length of the thing entire and the length of the blade alone.