If you merely deactivate your email address rather than closing your account or changing your notification settings or whatever, then the next time a legitimate service goes to send you a legitimate email that you asked for, it will bounce. In some sense this "shouldn't matter", as in a purely P2P system the only people who would notice are the sender and Apple -- and Apple knows what is going on, so should not penalize senders the way, say, Google would if they see you sending a ton of email to their domains and they all bounce -- but people tend to use services to help send email and centrally pool their reputation (such as mailchimp) and so these services themselves then watch the bounce rate of their individual customers and either charge them more or ban their access due to the bounce rate increase.
Is Apple really stupid enough that they BOUNCE emails after you deactivate, rather than just silent discard? What's the point of bouncing unwanted emails these days? It's not like these bounces go to humans who go "Oh, gee! This address must not work. Allow me to go and figure out how to contact him!" It's just a stream of full-on spam with completely fake return addresses, and crap from email campaign software.
And yet why are people going out of their way to send multipart emails with useless parts? Your analogy does not fit as the Amish person is potentially refusing the HTML part: I just cited my preference, confirming to the protocol, and am being actively sent garbage information as somehow someone seriously thought it was easier for them to go out of their way to give me the option and then laugh at me for making the wrong choice than to just send an email that is HTML only.
But the whole point was that it wasn't a separate role: it was a re-distribution of work so the developers were doing operations. Instead, a lot of people entirely missed the point and just renamed their ops people to devops.
Life is longer than a lot of people seem to think. I put a lot of effort into configuring vim and bash... 20 years ago maybe? And now I barely think about it, but the changes I made have made me more efficient and effective throughout those 20 years. Go ahead and put some time into figuring out how you use a tool and make scripts or aliases for using them... if you invest in good tools you will get decades of use out of, instead of chasing dumb fads, you'll just keep compounding your efficiency.
Your example kind of proves your position wrong, no? Nuclear power--another device you are yourself admitting is widely understood to be a doomsday device in the wrong hands--is also highly regulated and I cannot just create a company that sells a nuclear power device and I extra cannot do so and sell it to foreign nationals. If you make a device that you claim is capable of ending the world, you can and should be regulated.
I think you might be thinking that I'm making some other argument than the one I'm making.
I make no claims as to the need for regulation.
My argument is entirely that the observer described as neutral in the original comment cannot possibly be neutral if their description of the company they discuss is "Doomsday" anything. That's not neutral, it's loaded.
What the comment is describing is an opinionated observer, not a neutral observer. Someone who's opinion is that the company they describe is in the business of creating doomsday devices.
That's a real opinion that real people do have. But, you can't call yourself, or any portrayed character, neutral if they share that opinion.
I am unsure, then, as to what your actual goal is? Like, what would you have someone come away from your comment having learned? The comment did not even say the tech IS a doomsday device, it was trying to remove the actual description entirely--so it didn't matter if it was AI or nuclear energy or what--and the placeholder was "doomsday device", as that's what a person who only hears the rest of the sentence is ever going to take away from it.
I do, in fact, think that, if someone says "my technology -- call it what you will, and I won't bother to tell you what it is -- is so dangerous that in the wrong hands or if it isn't carefully contained in a way that I am going to great lengths to try to accomplish it can end the world" -- which is what these people at these companies are saying -- that it would be hard-pressed to not be willing to call that a "doomsday device". I would even go so far as to claim that the exact opposite is more likely true: that to not want to do so requires you to have some extremely awkward bias yourself.
Sure: me using that label to ascribe something related to this product makes some people, seemingly you included, feel bad, and so maybe we can say it involves a "bias", as I clearly can avoid that label, but chose not to, and in so doing colored the discussion in a way that makes you unhappy... but it doesn't make it untrue anymore than any other purely descriptive term is now-a-days often said to be biased. As they like to point out: "reality has a liberal bias" (even if it is just as often liberals annoyed with the terms being used by people ;P).
Again: the bias against the use of that term seems much more fascinating than being upset at the idea that the parable -- which of course is trying to make a point, and so is inherently biased towards that point -- could be attempting to temporary apply it, particularly so as it seems to lead to blindness to what actually happened: people will hear you saying your tech is dangerous, and it will be banned and regulated.
And that's related to why I maintain that I think your example disproves your own attempt at a point: you try to draw a parallel to another technology, as if once we find out it is nuclear reaction research we of course know that that isn't a doomsday device... and yet that is one of the few things that is most obviously to the most people a doomsday device, it is a thing that even the people working on it have always felt might not just be a doomsday device but might be "the" doomsday device (as in, the one that actually does us in), and there has not only been countless people out there worried about what can and will happen in its usage, but it was in fact weaponized and a very very large number of people died due to it, so to try to make the argument that it would be biased to call it a "doomsday device" itself feels very awkward.
But, sure: we can decide that that's biased and throw out the "dunno it sounds like a doomsday device and should be regulated" argument as the argument itself has a bias in it, and that leaves us with... what? A world in which people make these things, talk about how dangerous they are, and then feign in shock and frantically try to backpedal when governments step in to prevent it from being released without careful analysis and regulation and study and planning?
This is the kind of problem I expect Claude to be useless at, and while I could see Gemini Deep Think making a good showing, I'd only bother with ChatGPT Pro. FWIW, I do believe it got the correct answer as one of its first two suggestions (though I am not an electrical engineer, so maybe I am not understanding this given the vague/summarized prompt).
This is a steel man of Anthropic's argument, though, and the premise that there could have been a different thing they claimed that would hold up more doesn't and shouldn't defend their position. To the extent to which it comes down to automating and replacing the need for humans or supporting runaway execution that might accidentally kill all the humans, Anthropic routinely measures it, warns of it, and then releases it. Instead, it is only with respect to specific functionality -- much of which is suspiciously beneficial to them, as they internally claim to use AI to improve their own products while also constantly whining about other people using their AI to improve their products -- that they will put a ton of effort into limiting the access or applicability. The day I boot up Claude and ask it to design a website or automate my paperclip factory and it refuses on ethical grounds is the day Anthropic might seem a little less hypocritical.
reply