That lie was definitely inappropriate, but it would still have been inappropriate if it was told by a human. I think it’s useful to distinguish between bad things that happen to be done by an AI and things that are bad specifically because they are done by an AI. How would you feel about an AI that didn’t lie or deceive but also didn’t announce itself as an AI?

ChangeMyView seems like the sort of topic where AI posts can actually be appropriate. If the goal is to hear arguments for an opposing point of view, the AI is contributing more than a human would if in fact the AI can generate more convincing arguments.

No kid wants a toy Aquaman.

It sounds like the point they’re trying to make is that Americans don’t want to have children because things in the USA are getting bad, but if that was the correct explanation then we would expect to see (1) people in countries where it’s worse having even fewer children, which we don’t see, and (2) people in countries where it’s better having more children, which we also don’t see.

It’s annoying to repeatedly read the same completely unsupported explanations for fertility rate declines.

Except for the part where the fertility rate in El Salvador is higher than it is in the USA. If we’re becoming more like them, our fertility rate should be increasing.

The computer that controlled all the doors refused to open any of them, including the door to the room in which it was physically located.

It wasn’t quite HAL 9000 because doors could still be opened from the inside, but control over the computer was regained only with the help of a locksmith.

This is Bond-villain level megalomania, and therefore actually kind of cool.

Convicted?

My hope is that if they wait two years then it’ll be to minimize the damage until the midterm elections, at which point Democrats will win both the house and the senate. I think that’s the best-case scenario.

There isn’t much the court can do if Trump refuses to comply and Republicans in Congress continue to support him. I hate to say it, but avoiding a confrontation may be better than getting into that situation, both for the court and for the country.

In practice, no one will be hurt by this change, except for the pain caused by a defeat in the culture war. If I were you, I would consider risking my career over real harm done to individuals, but not over abstract harm done to an idea, even an idea I supported.

I think this is not a straightforward case as a matter of law, even though it is as a matter of justice. Generally, a court couldn’t reasonably order the US government to exfiltrate a person from a prison in a foreign country (even if he was there as a result of US government wrongdoing). This case is different because when the US government is paying the foreign country to keep that person in prison, the reasons why such an order would generally be unreasonable don’t apply.

The question is, where do you draw the line between the general case and this specific case? What if, for example, El Salvador decides to do what presumably makes Trump happy rather than what he’s being ordered to ask for, and refuses to free this man despite an official request from the US? Can a court decide that the US needs to try harder? What if El Salvador stubbornly keeps refusing?

We all know that this man would be back in the US if Trump wanted him back in the US, but how do you prove that?

You’re still capable of feeling joy on the inside?

After the tariffs were unveiled in front of TV cameras at the White House, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told those countries named: “Do not retaliate, sit back, take it in, let’s see how it goes, because, if you retaliate, there will be escalation.”

I’m sure that went over well. Xi loves sitting back and taking it in, especially when this is on Trump’s mind:

“'Oh, he used the word ‘rape.’ That’s right. I used the word ‘rape,’” Trump said at the Detroit Economic Club after his remarks were met with what sounded like some gasps from the audience. “They raped our country,” he repeated.

I’m curious about how well-informed most Americans are about the Soviet Union. Do they know that it was once a place where ordinary people were accused of crimes without evidence, taken away without a trial, and never seen again? Do they know that this generally happened because of the smallest suspicion that a person was not fanatically loyal to the government, rather than a violent criminal? Do they know that a million people were killed this way? And do they know that the Soviet Union was one of many places like that?

I expect that the Soviet Union doesn’t seem particularly relevant to younger generations of voters, but isn’t this the sort of lurid history that did interest them as adolescents? And don’t older voters remember the Cold War?

I am not a lawyer, but I think that presenting the defendants’ case as written in their memorandum would not be lying, although I can see how doing so would make an honest man uncomfortable. Reuveni supported the morally right side when, in effect, he argued for the plaintiffs, but in doing so he failed to fulfill a lawyer’s obligation to zealously defend his client. If he wanted to do both, he should have declined to take the case in the first place (although presumably he would have been demoted or fired for that too).

With that said, a man can do the right thing now even when he could have done so earlier and didn’t (and doing so in court was certainly more dramatic than refusing to take the case would have been). I wouldn’t mind donating money to him the way that people of a different sort donated money to Daniel Penny.

I’m not sure how to reconcile my view with the principle that even the worst criminal defendants have the right to competent legal representation. I suppose I make an exception here because the federal government is never in danger of being railroaded.

Thank you, but don’t mind me. I just had multiple tabs open and accidentally replied to the wrong post.

I did think the answer from jms21y in the screenshot was interesting. Years ago, before Reddit existed, I used to post on a message board where there was a great deal of diversity and still people were polite to each other - the rules were strict about that. There were also only several dozen active participants so we all knew each other. Anyway, one of the regulars was an active-duty military guy and his perspective was often very interesting. I think the ideological range of the people I talked to has become so much narrower since then. People (including me) are so much angrier now than even during the GWB presidency.

deleted by creator

Obviously the judge can’t order the dead raised, but if El Salvador won’t release him then does the judge have the authority to decide whether or not Trump made a good-faith attempt to have him released? I don’t think anyone knows at this point. It’s clear to all that Trump could in fact have him released (or at least have his body returned if he has been killed) so what happens if Trump says that he tried and El Salvador said no? Will the judge accept Trump’s transparent lie, or will he risk creating a Constitutional crisis that Trump would probably win?

I’m not optimistic. I don’t think the American system of government is capable of handling the executive branch along with a majority of the legislative branch acting in bad faith with the support of a large part of the public.