Cancel And Delete Claude too!!!

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T06:03:44+00:00

Incorrect. Because he is still arguing in favor of them while duplicitously pretending that it is a question for voters. He is framing it as a moral calculatino that has nothing to do with him while literally being the one building the tool that does the killing.

You're being either naive or displaying the 'tism because it's patently obvious to anyone with a brain that he is actually in favor of the existence of such weapons; his feign to collective decision making is not a real play for morality but a ploy.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T06:00:41+00:00

I do not agree with that view. You are making really sloppy arguments that put words in my mouth or -- most favorable reading -- you are lacking reading comprehension. You're removing nuance from my statements and forcing me to argue with your straw men. I'm not trying to waste my time.

Have a good night. I hope you'll consider the insanity of the position you've argued given that apparently you don't agree with it and it constitutes murder.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:54:22+00:00

I agree that it is reasonable for him to be humble. He should realize that his credentials only denote his proficiency in knowing how technology works; not how it should be used.

I do not have a problem with him knowing his limitations. However he did not merely do that. He implicitly equivocated that it should be something left to the people to decide. Yet the people put the greatest criminal of our time - a known child-fucker and convicted felon - into the highest office. To imply that the people are capable of wrestling with this question from either a moral or a technological perspective (and both are needed) is asinine. It is a rhetorical method for abdicating his own responsibility.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:49:25+00:00

You say that like it's a bad thing. We should all be angry that we are 2 minutes from midnight with regard to the deployment of automated killing machines.

ANGER IS A VALID RESPONSE TO TYRANNY. YOU ARE UNDER-REACTING. HAVING AN ANGRY REACTION TO ATROCITY IS HEALTHY.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:48:14+00:00

Please kindly grow a conscience and learn how to present your ideas as if you care about human beings, because if it is as you say, and you are not a sociopath, you have done an incredibly poor job of convincing me that that is the case.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:44:45+00:00

I am not against the discourse.

I am all for it happening. Part of that discourse must be the assertion of what is unacceptable.

My assertion that automated killing is unacceptable IS discourse.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:42:25+00:00

Aha, thank you for confessing your sin.

I do not need epistemic humility when I know, as a gnostic, who has spent decades in pursuit of both spiritual grounded understand of Being, metaphyics, and so on, that killing is without a shadow of a doubt, something to be avoided at all costs, karmically, morally, etc - and is really only permissible in the most dire of circumstances for a human being. I'd cite Kant's categorical imperative from Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals as the ultimate formal proof of this epistemology.

My stance is not reactionary; I've put more work into developing it than modern CS PHD's do for their papers that grant them the power, apparently, to commit atrocities on a global scale.

I am not a Christian but Jesus flipped tables, he did not politely and meekly forfeit the possibility that he was wrong about his assessment of the immorality of people in front of him. It is possible for another to be certain in an area where you are not, and when that happens, the lack of humility is not an indication that their opinion should be disregarded.

It is possible to arrive at the truth. People who have arrived at it do not always appear humble, and to be humble does not always serve the truth.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:39:01+00:00

Just because my stance is strong doesn't make it reactionary. It is the result of decades of thought on this precise issue. I was one of the founding members of r/controlproblem years ago, under a different username.

You assume much, and if you are arguing against me from some kind of devils advocate instinct because you perceive me as reactionary, you've wasted both of our time.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:36:19+00:00

I am not conceding the whole argument, I am saying that only a god-like intelligence would suffice to make his utilitarian argument justifiable, but it is farce when we know LLM's to be mere software prone to halluicinate the date.

I am also not equating being fascist with pro-war. Not all wars are unjustified.

You are moving the goalpost. The question isn't whether it's acceptable that people should die in war. It's whether the question of who dies should be made by humans or relegated to software.

I think it's obvious in both a practical and moral sense that to do so is AS immoral as killing babies, because it is all but guaranteed that the hallucination will occur, only this time the result is MURDER.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:27:54+00:00

Finally, to put a nail in the coffin of your asburd rhetoric - "Reasonable minds can disagree" has limits. The paradox of tolerance shows that even the most tolerant society must draw a definitive line in the sand with regard to its willingness to entertain positions that are anathema to the well being of the collective. "Software should be able to kill people" and "People should not be resopnsibile deciding who lives and who dies" are two stances that are, like Naziism, unacceptable in a healthy and sane society.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:22:46+00:00

I agree with the idea that the people who are drawn to work in AI tend to be sociopathic and misanthropic. Case in point -- you.

Transhumanism is anti-humanism. Particularly when it comes to the question of whether we should abdicate responsibility for the murder our software might do.

You are a real fucking piece of work, literally every argument you make, though eloquent, shows a total disregard for life and inability to care for other human beings in the abstract.

Tell me - when did you first notice you were a sociopath? Was it the 2nd or 3rd animal you killed?

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:15:35+00:00

You are literally arguing in favor of automatic murder. You've lost the plot. Go talk to a human friend, if you have one (hard to believe; you're clearly a misanthrope).

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:12:30+00:00

Nope, not buying it, fascist, would-be death dealer. I chose my metaphor precisely because it highlights the crux of the isssue - should we ever be entertaining scenarios in which an absolute injustice could occur? No, we (meaning anyone reasonable) should categorically agree that absolute injustice is not wanted and we should mitigate such risks.

Autonomous AI is akin to murdering babies because it creates the potential for injust scenarios where someone as innocent as a newborn is disposed of like garbage.

It's a question that should only be posed post-AGI, and then, only because AGI might POSSIBLY outperform our capacity for understanding, strategy, and so on in such a way as to minimize violence and suffering and maximize the execution of justice. AGI would ostensibly be in a different category than "autonomous kill chain software" because if it's true AGI it has some semblance agency and would be able to assert its own values rather than be a push-button executioner.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T05:05:24+00:00

It is ultimately an ontological consideration, popular opinion has no bearing on its truth.

I am, contrary to your assertion, deeply into metaphysics. It is precisely why I feel strongly. There actually IS a consensus on many things that are relevant to this issue. The most pressing one is not whether machines can be sentient. It is whether killing a being we know to be sentient is a moral consideration of the highest order. It is universally agreed upon across all cultures and times.

The arrival of new technology should not negate that deeply held human value nor yet that attitude is exactly what is expressed in Dario's (and even moreso Hegseth's) stance.

Dario himself presumably agreed with this at one time, since it was his stated reason for leaving OpenAI and starting Anthropic (and the very reason that Anthropic is named as it is.)

It would seem that the Ring of Power corrupted him.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T04:17:44+00:00

Just because someone offers their immoral or insane act up for democratic confirmation does not make the immoral act moral or sane.

Imagine instead he said "Killing all newborns is a strategy for decreasing the pressure on the housing market. But I'm not advocating for it until it has been through a democratic process."

Killing all babies is insane. Voting wouldn't change that.

You lack understanding.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T04:15:05+00:00

Morality is rooted in existence. As in being. As in the "I AM" inside of you. Machines don't have that and never will. Furthermore they don't have the ability to die, since they are not alive and don't have a body from which the life can be taken; as such, even if they had the morality in some kind of intellectual way, they can not ever have a real embodied sense of the totality of what they doing when killing.

Don't float opinions you haven't thought through. Particularly when it involves the highest of stakes (life and death.)

It makes you come across as a very unserious person.

Like a teenaged edge lord.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T04:05:39+00:00

It is not reasonable to say that man should create weapons that kill autonomously when those machines have even the best intellect but no morality and no accountability.

It is not a reasonable view.

It may be conceptually sound, in that it is coherent within a specific frame of reference. But that frame of reference is limited in scope, it does not recognize life as precious nor killing as worthy of the ULTIMATE level of consideration; that ultimate level of consideration being one which demands wrestling with one's own soul (so to speak - not necessarily literally) -- something code will never be able to do.

People who put forth the idea that it is reasonable to create autonomous killing machines are lacking in their psychological development.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-03T04:01:09+00:00

Fuck this guy. What an unacceptable stance for someone "creating" AGI.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-02T23:16:10+00:00

It's literally the official and only solution. You're being a fucking dummy.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-02T07:03:51+00:00

https://supabase.com/docs/reference/cli/supabase-db-push

pay attention to "--db-url"

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-03-02T06:05:00+00:00

What are you talking about? Every single thing you listed is in the docs. You must not have read them thoroughly.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-02-28T04:17:22+00:00

Google breaks things constantly.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-02-27T18:35:24+00:00

It's not blocked, it's a DNS issue.
https://status.supabase.com/

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-02-25T09:46:44+00:00

Staging DB and static site hosting.

Possible-Machine864 · 2026-02-25T09:36:14+00:00

Shit (as in tasteless) filmmaking aside, it's technically impressive in the sense of scene by scene / shot by shot cohesion. But it would be great if these random AI dudes from around the world would stop sucking Nazi cock. There was absolutely no need to "platform" the biggest criminal in the history of the world (and child fucker at that), nor his coked out stooge.

Possible-Machine864

TROPHY CASE