You've got it backwards. Open AI wants to do business with the UAE. A lot of the people here think this is bad, and you are one of them. I am saying: Open AI is engaging in business that is legal as far as the US laws are involved, because the UAE are not under sanctions. We (the US) are a democracy, and the US government acts as a representative of our collective will. As a democracy we decided, through our representatives, that is ok to do business with the UAE, otherwise we'd have sanctions on them. I am ok with that, and I was pointing out that private businesses should concern themselves with doing business, and the State Department should be trusted with making the value decision if a regime is autocratic enough that the US wants to put is on its sanctions list.
You think for some reason that this type of position is one of arrogance. That I should show modesty and let people, such as yourself, criticize Open AI for getting in bed with autocrats. And if myself I have no problem with autocrats, then I should just keep out of this, because nobody around here asked for my opinion.
But this is very backward. When Jesus said that only those who never wronged in their life should throw a stone, one could retort that only people who never wronged should tell other people what to do with the stones they find on the street. Does that type of argument make sense to you?
you're confusing what is legal with what is moral – the two dimensions are orthogonal
importantly, we are not forced to adopt the morality of 1 particular government, out of hundreds of thousands – this is an appeal to authority (and not even a good authority)
if someone thinks that empowering autocrats is immoral, even if it's not illegal, then it is indeed arrogance to say that you have decided their morality is wrong
> You think for some reason... That I should show modesty and let people, such as yourself, criticize Open AI for getting in bed with autocrats
not really: modesty in judging others was your suggestion. you can stand by your suggestion or not, but you don't have the power to "let" or not "let" anybody criticize autocrats or their enablers
remember here: them criticizing autocrats and their enablers, is equally valid to you criticizing them for their criticism; which is equally valid to others criticizing you for criticizing their criticism; etc... we could keep going, but as you undoubtedly see, there is no good discussion to be had in the meta-direction of criticizing criticism, rather than directly addressing the issues raised in the initial critique
as for the jesus analogy: I wish I could follow it, but I could not, likely due to a failing on my part (I'm not familiar with jesus) -- would you mind rephrasing the point as a non-analogy (directly)? perhaps an analogy won't be necessary because the message is clear!
You think for some reason that this type of position is one of arrogance. That I should show modesty and let people, such as yourself, criticize Open AI for getting in bed with autocrats. And if myself I have no problem with autocrats, then I should just keep out of this, because nobody around here asked for my opinion.
But this is very backward. When Jesus said that only those who never wronged in their life should throw a stone, one could retort that only people who never wronged should tell other people what to do with the stones they find on the street. Does that type of argument make sense to you?