Could you at least try to formulate that into an argument? Preferably you could address the justifications alluded to in the article and maybe try to frame that discussion in the context of Karps intellectual history.
Democratic regimes, in the name of anti fascism, have performed extremely gruesome acts and far more thoroughly violated the privacy of individuals.
Karp obviously believes that the actions by palantir are necessary to safeguard liberal democracy as it has existed.
Karp has obviously studied German democracy, which has a specific concept for this "wehrhafte Demokratie", meaning that democracies must defend themselves, with force if necessary.
Every single person has an internal narrative which justifies their own actions. Assuming that Karp doesn't is just totally bizarre and not an argument at all. "He just is evil and wants money", is not a coherent explanation of anybody.
Hilariously this who thing was one of the central debates in Germany, which got significantly influenced by Habermas. If some people are "just evil", then National Socialism will just spontaneously come again and again, it is not a coherent theory of human behavior.
> Every single person has an internal narrative which justifies their own actions. Assuming that Karp doesn't is just totally bizarre and not an argument at all. "He just is evil and wants money", is not a coherent explanation of anybody.
What's bizarre is acting like there is not a huge profit motive here. You're the only one that offered the value judgment of "evil" so I don't think that's a fair response anyway. It's perfectly coherent otherwise.
>Hilariously this who thing was one of the central debates in Germany, which got significantly influenced by Habermas. If some people are "just evil", then National Socialism will just spontaneously come again and again, it is not a coherent theory of human behavior.
Exacz. Remember when I ask the other guy to make his argument explicit and you told me there was no need to. This is completely ridiculous.
If Karp isn't evil for creating "racist AI", what else should I make of it. There is no actual argument to engage with, which is why I asked for it.
>What's bizarre is acting like there is not a huge profit motive here. You're the only one that offered the value judgment of "evil" so I don't think that's a fair response anyway. It's perfectly coherent otherwise.
You are completely disregarding what I said. Nobodies internal narrative is "I murder people to make money".
>Exacz. Remember when I ask the other guy to make his argument explicit and you told me there was no need to. This is completely ridiculous.
I said it was obviously an argument that this guy was a hypocrite. You jumped from that to evil. Let's just pretend you were having a conversation with me and I wrote "sounds like the guy is a hypocrite."
>If Karp isn't evil for creating "racist AI", what else should I make of it. There is no actual argument to engage with, which is why I asked for it.
Only accused him of being a hypocrite; fueling that which he claims to fear, for his own personal gain.
>You are completely disregarding what I said. Nobodies internal narrative is "I murder people to make money".
No, their internal narrative is "I make money". Again, typing your words into my own posts.
