BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[Ian H]

The more critiques I read, the more it's clear that Blair is now just a Trumpist with a functioning brain. It's a pity that he uses that brain to try to argue for such a plainly short-term and destructive agenda, both in human and ecological terms. He ought to be ignored now.

Years ago Roy Hattersley described Blair as politically and philosophically unread, and thus with a tendency to drift with whoever had his ear.

 

[secretsqirrel]

There's some weird psychology that goes on in right wing brains that opposes obviously logical things that have been part of a left wing or green agenda, and that opposes things that simply move things on from 'how it's always been'. Fossil fuels seem to be one of those trigger topics that is in effect a 'declaration of faith' in Conservatism, along with anti-woke etc. The Telegraph opinion pages (which is most of the Telegraph these days) is a good gauge of what the trigger subjects are. You can't be a true right-winger if you show any sympathy towards sustainable energy, tolerance, etc.

“For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways."

David Attenborough?……..

No, Margaret Thatcher.

 

[Psamathe]

I wonder if politicians going on about complex subjects they really don't understand further discredits out politicians and our views of them.

AI is a complex subject even at a non-technical level. Impacts on society will depend on the capabilities of these systems which increasingly look like having been "over-sold". People like Blair (and Sunak, Starmer, etc.) don't have time background, training, etc. to even understand the limitations, capabilities and potential let along societal impacts yet they seem to keep telling us all about what we must do.

Reality is they are just repeating whatever lobbyist furthers their personal agenda (money, status, whatever).

Increasing numbers working in the AI development feel that LLMs are limited and pushing that development will not take us into AGI. Yet politicians feel that them playing with ChatGPT or Grok for a few minutes gives them expertise and insight experts in the field don't have.

 

[briantrumpet]

I wonder if politicians going on about complex subjects they really don't understand further discredits out politicians and our views of them.

AI is a complex subject even at a non-technical level. Impacts on society will depend on the capabilities of these systems which increasingly look like having been "over-sold". People like Blair (and Sunak, Starmer, etc.) don't have time background, training, etc. to even understand the limitations, capabilities and potential let along societal impacts yet they seem to keep telling us all about what we must do.

Reality is they are just repeating whatever lobbyist furthers their personal agenda (money, status, whatever).

Increasing numbers working in the AI development feel that LLMs are limited and pushing that development will not take us into AGI. Yet politicians feel that them playing with ChatGPT or Grok for a few minutes gives them expertise and insight experts in the field don't have.

I'd come back to Ian Dunt's book on Westminster and how it's evolved that any expertise in a particular field is almost impossible in ministries now, such is the churn in ministers and civil servants.

 

[Pross]

A. Money.

For politicians etc. yes but I really don't think that's an issue with the general public (unless they've been duped into it by said politicians regurgitating it).

 

[Pblakeney]

For politicians etc. yes but I really don't think that's an issue with the general public (unless they've been duped into it by said politicians regurgitating it).

I don't hear it from the general public. Unless they are just repeating what they've been told by their pick of rosette in some cases.

 

[briantrumpet]

Years ago Roy Hattersley described Blair as politically and philosophically unread, and thus with a tendency to drift with whoever had his ear.

Carrying on the Blair's-gone-native theme, Ian Dunt's critique of Blair's paean to Trump & the US is good:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/tony-blairs-downfall-complete-sad-irrelevant-end-4439238

We all know Blair’s starting assumption when it comes to the transatlantic relationship: you stay close to the Americans. You do your best to influence them where possible, but you do not allow yourself to be divided. This view – it is actually more of a faith at this point – has discoloured his assessment of the Trump administration to the point of caricature.

“This side of the water, we’re being told some home truths,” Blair argues. The Americans want us to be “bigger and better partners”, not to distance themselves from us. They are still our allies. Trump, due to his concern about Russia in the Arctic, sees the world “no differently from how Europe sees the world”.

Every part of this assessment is wrong. Trump does not speak “home truths”. He lies. Trump does not want us strong. He wants us weak. He views the world in terms of personal fiefdoms and would prefer the UK as a minor subordinate in the American sphere of interest. Trump does not see the world as Europe does. He is an ally of Russia. He wishes to destroy Europe.

All of this is so obvious it barely needs saying. The Trump administration openly supports European political parties trying to undermine the EU from within. It repeatedly sympathises with Russia’s war aims in Ukraine and has tried to help it secure them in peace talks. It has threatened to invade a Nato ally. The level of wilful blindness you need to believe otherwise is astonishing.