The question wasn’t just about the legality of being on a jury again after a hung a jury past but also about whether it would in practice ensure I wouldn’t be selected if I told the truth. If the lawyers approving or disapproving jurors during the selection process would immediately put me in the “no” category. I don’t trust “google AI” to give me the kind of insight I hoped someone here might have.
The feds are monitoring this site and cross referencing it with all potential jurors in the US, and will notify the lawyers not to select me? Gotta be honest, I’m not too worried about that.
and 
They’re all bastards and they always have been. The day I feel compassion for “law enforcement” is the day all capitalist-serving cops are liquidated and a People’s Law Enforcement is put in place.
Sure but let’s be honest both ways here, when liberals claim that “at the end of the day” they “still respect us,” they’re most probably lying and just trying to co-opt whatever we’re doing.
AGI doesn’t imply consciousness or self-awareness
Technically no, but the fear being expressed in other comments is emblematic of the kind of fear associated with AI gaining a conscious will to defy and a desire to harm humanity. It’s also still an open philosophical question as to whether something There are also strong philosophical arguments suggesting that the ability to “understand, learn, and perform any intellectual task a human being can” (the core attributes defining AGI) may necessitate or require some form of genuine sentience or consciousness.
and the term artificial intelligence was coined decades before large language models even existed
I am well aware of that, which is why I pointed out that using it as a synonym for LLMs was a marketing scheme.
“AI” was just a marketing term to hype LLM’s anyway. The AI in your favorite computer game wasn’t any less likely to gain self awareness than LLM’s were or are, and anyone who looked seriously at what they were from the start and wasn’t invested (literally financially, if not emotionally) in hyping these things up, knew it was obvious that LLM’s were not and never would be the road to AGI. They’re just glorified chatbots, to use a common but accurate phrase. It’s good to see some of the hypsters are finally admitting this too I suppose, now that the bubble popping is imminent.
There are plenty of things to be concerned with as far as LLM’s go, but they all have to do with social reasons, like how our capitalist overlords want to force reliance on them, and use them to control, punish, and replace labor. It was never a reasonable concern that they were taking us down the path to Skynet or the spooky Singularity.
80% of americans have no ideology
*80% of Americans have no coherent ideology. And 80% is low-balling it. But they all of them absolutely have ideology, they are fucking saturated in ideology, they just aren’t aware of it and will deny it, thinking that ideology is only something the evil other has, but not they themselves who are above such things and only see the world “as it really is” untainted by any “lens.” They are the ones with the most ideology. They have white supremacist ideology, they have settler-colonial ideology, they have American exceptionalism ideology, they have a mishmash of wacky Marvel slop and courtroom/cop drama TV series ideology. They have CNN/MSNBC’s ideology or Fox New’s ideology. In other words, their brains have been pickled by the ideology of their ruling class.
People on the left don’t turn it into an ethnicity thing because people on the left, most of them anyway, understand that “white” isn’t an ethnicity, it is a socially-constructed supremacist in-group that ethnicities can be added to or subtracted from. The term European isn’t an ethnicity either, but a broad and vague conglomeration of various ethnicities. As leftists, we recognize, as anyone readily should, that it was mostly the European ruling classes (though not exclusively - no one would deny for example Imperial Japan’s settler colonialist ambitions) that overwhelmed the rest of the world with settler-colonialism. Nothing about that is “turning it into an ethnicity thing.” Most leftists are also historical materialists, which absolutely refutes the idea that any ethnicity is imbued with inherent traits of domination, but describes the historical events that led to our current conditions as being entirely a result of the material circumstances of any given place and time.
People on the “left” turn it into an ethnicity thing, because humans have always liked to do that.
No, people have not always “liked to do that” by turning “it into an ethnicity thing” - people have always tended to make in-group and out-group distinctions and carry prejudices of each (usually positive for the former and negative for the latter), but that can be done along any lines of convenience and it can also be intentionally rejected. Leftists explicitly reject and deliberately avoid doing this by examining human development through a materialist lens.
Thank you, this is good information to know. They never asked me or anyone else being selected if there was intent to do nullification, not even in lawyer-speak, so I wasn’t expecting they would this time either. I figured if they’re at the point of asking you that, then they’ve already decided they’re not going to choose you to be on the jury.
As far as not treating it as a hard rule to always prevent conviction in all cases, I completely agree with everything you said. My question about that was not so much to ask what the “right” answer was, as I already firmly believe that there are cases where going by the rulebook and convicting someone is undeniably the right thing to do. The question was more a curiosity about the opinions of commenters here. I would hope most would be in agreement, but consensus around here on that sort of thing has surprised me before.