schizoidmanBritain jumps into bed with Palantir in £1.5B defense pact
melroyPalantir is one of the most even capitalism companies I have ever seen.
FizzThere is nothing evil about palantir as a company or business model. They are a highly skilled big data analytics firm and just ingest clients data and output useful metrics.
The evil is the client(governments) intention to collect and use this kind of data. Which has nothing to do with capitalism and is only happening due to liberalism being on the way out.
kalkulatI guess there was nothing evil about GM and Ford supplying Nazis with car parts (Henry Ford got a ‘golden eagle’ award from Adolf!) before WW2. Nothing evil about IBM supplying them with punch cards to keep track of the Jewish either, right?
The evil there is the Nazi’s so Im not going to talk about “most evil” and point to Ford when the Nazi’s are standing right next to them.
We can easily chain together support to call anyone evil but thats stupid and unproductive. I’ll draw the line at the person committing the evil act being evil. Are people who hold raytheon stock evil? Are people who work for the government under Trump evil? Are the people who made food for Nazi’s evil? Where do you draw your line?
Amazing. If you build and sell tools to commit horrible crimes against humanity, that’s all cool, it’s just good business actually as long as someone else is pushing the button.
A kindergardener has more robust ethics than this.
What are the horrible crimes against humanity that make Palantir the most evil company in the world and be specific.
Instead of answering this question, I’ll direct you to some tangential research that may help you answer this question yourself. I’d like you to read a bit on different ethical frameworks (you can just wiki that one), then I’d like you to apply that to some of the openly available policies, contracts and practices of the company. At that point you should have your answer. Thank you in advance for doing your own research 😉
Thanks for letting me know you can’t answer the question at the start
Well let me just ask you a question: how much say should an AI have in the decision to kill a human being? What percentage do you think is appropriate?
What makes you think you can measure the % say an AI has in the decision to kill a human? Even if we pretend “it had 100% say” was true it wouldnt matter, it would still be a human that ordered the deployment and be responsible for the decision.
Dont get me started on how dumb that video is. Video essay slop.
Lmfao u funny