Benarroch said. X users must be 13 years old to open an account, and those under 17 cannot be targeted by advertisers.
Does that mean if I open an account and tell X I'm 13 years old, I can do what I want with no ads?
4497 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Mar 2010
Most of that data isn't online, much of it isn't even centrally filed anywhere. And the quality is highly variable. For instance, it's not unusual for people to use different names, or variants of names at different times in their life. And you wouldn't believe how many records have been lost or destroyed outright over the years.
Assembling a coherent story from such sources involves either a lot of guesswork or a lot of homework. Or both.
Yeah, that's something he should be suing for separately.
Even if he had been guilty, there's still no justification for exposing him to that. Jails have a duty to protect their inmates, and failures on this scale should be punished by - at the very least - multiple people losing their careers, if not their liberty.
Here's the far-right media talking about several Democrat ads, and how they're helping the Republicans-https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/07/democrats-boosted-extremists-republican-primaries-was-that-wise
Yeah, that's the monolithic left-wing MSM pointing out the moral bankruptcy of the Democratic leadership. Doesn't actually touch on the argument you were making before or answer my request, but well done anyway.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/democrats-launch-jan-6-newspaper-ad-campaign-iowa-trump-visits-rcna132627Another perfectly reasonable story, not related in any way to what you were arguing before.
Why? The Dems have already locked up over 1,000 politicial prisoners. Didn't you know this already?Well, "why?" is because that's what you said was happening, and I'm asking you to provide some kind of evidence.
And "the Dems", which is an odd way of framing the US Justice Department by the way, have locked people up for committing crimes. Actual, violent crimes. Are you saying they shouldn't do that? Show me the reports of people being locked up for holding any political opinion that doesn't involve violent action. (Hint: the answer to this is a few lines down this very post, but it doesn't support your claim that the Democrats are abusing the power of the federal gov't against Republicans.)
Then people think CBDCs are also a conspiracy theory, when they're just a consipiracy.Err, no. CBDCs are real enough. You linked to the European Central Bank making plans to introduce one. In doing so - as your link illustrates - it is very publicly going through the full democratic decision making processes, such as they are, of the EU, answering entirely to the EU's political leadership. Where's the "conspiracy" there?
In the USA, meanwhile, nobody has even talked about introducing one. There's just no drive for it. That's what I mean by "no centralised decision making". Just a lot of people doing their own thing. Is that bad?
You can do it today though.I'll just leave these here then:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/judge-sentences-florida-man-18-years-prison-attempting-provide-material-support-isis
https://apnews.com/article/islamic-state-terrorism-minnesota-0e4a09840bed202cac17e18e3dfd87d5
The Bbc has actually sorta reported on these, although with their usual spin-Uh huh. And here's another example of the BBC "pointedly ignoring" these protests: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67911739
Just because you're not paying attention, that doesn't prove the BBC aren't doing their job.
If AfD win an election, that isn't "toppling the German government", it's just democracy.That depends what you mean by "win an election". Of course, you could argue that any time an opposition party wins an election the existing government is "toppled". But that's not what anyone means here. Germany has a cultural memory of the Nazis, who proved that you can "win" an election by processes and means that have nothing to do with democracy, and if you think there's nobody in the AfD and its allies today who sees that as a template worth trying, I have an Internet to sell you. I'm not saying it's likely, I'm not even saying that the leadership is planning any such thing, but I'll bet someone is thinking on those lines, and it's not unreasonable to keep a close eye on those people.
You must have missed all the attack ads telling the gullible that Trump and 'extreme MAGA Republicans' are the greatest threat to democracy ever, and should be locked up and not allowed to voteYep, I've missed those. Show me one? Surely YouTube has them by now.
I mean, I believe you on the "greatest threat to [our - you seem to have elided the pronoun for some reason] democracy" bit, but I specifically want to see an ad saying that MAGA Republicans "should be locked up and not allowed to vote".
Davos made this very clear.Some people make "Davos" sound like some sort of world conspiracy. It's just a meeting where a lot of powerful people get together and talk over lots of ideas. Some of them like some of those ideas, and go away and try to do something with them; others don't like the same ideas and may even work against them.. There's no centralised decision making going on there.
The Bbc of course loves these ideas- he says, with a link to a reasonably balanced article about a proposal in Germany to ban a political party - something that all countries in the world have always done. (Try raising money for the Communist Party in America in the 1960s, or Islamic State today, see how far you get.) You can find such proposals in various countries at any given time. The BBC article you link to shows no signs of "loving" the idea.
the Bbc has been pointedly ignoring the much larger protests ongoing in GermanySo are you, apparently. Link to a report by some news source you do believe about these much larger protests, so we can see what you're talking about? (I mean, there must be such a source, or how would you even know about them?)
"The press" never said any of that. Just... do try to keep in some kind of touch with reality.
There's nothing wrong with reporting in most of the media. The problem is in the opinionating. Which is forced upon them because it's the only way to make money under US law (facts aren't covered by copyright, but opinion is). With the result that the media has purposely and systematically blurred the line between reporting and opinion, and by now half the population can't even see there's a difference.
Bullshit.
The super-rich are not that different from the rest of us. Some of them are evil, sure, but not all by any means.
And even those that are evil are also bright enough to know that they're not going to go on getting richer unless ordinary people have enough income to trickle some up to them. For instance, since I've been unemployed, my Starbucks (and equivalent) budget has dropped to zero - those people are no longer making anything out of me, not one cent per year. It's not in their own interests to promote that sort of thing, any more than it is in mine.
The Very Stable Genius isn't always wrong. He's always evil, but that's a whole different axis.
In this case he's grabbing headlines and votes by taking aim at a nefarious scheme that nobody is actually pushing anyway. Should be an easy victory for him. Votes for - essentially, promising to make sure the sun comes up tomorrow.
If your distribution losses are 30%, I suggest you consider moving to a first-world country.
The 5% figure comes from the US Energy Information Administration. In the UK, the National Grid Company says:
The total quantity of electricity supplied in the United Kingdom during 2015 was 338TWh, but only 311TWh was consumed by customers.
- which implies a loss rate of about 8%, which is higher than I'd have guessed but still way closer to my estimate than yours. (Although come to think of it, reactive power probably accounts for that difference.)
Where are you getting your figures from?
Natural gas generators, on average, achieve a thermal efficiency of approximately 45%. Coal is closer to 35% (mostly because the owners have been skimping on maintenance for the past 30 years). Upgrading to combined cycle could add about 20% to both those figures, but nobody in the US is willing to pay for that.
The electricity distribution grid loses about 5% (in the USA - in smaller countries, it's a lot less). I know nothing about battery losses.
And let's not forget, fuel doesn't pump, refine and distribute itself. If you want to do a real apples-to-apples comparison, there's a lot more work to do.
I imagine some variants on that story will probably happen, and some lawyers will do very well that way for a while, until the opposition wises up.
But it's an eternal arms race. And in the long run, my money is on the side that improves indefinitely over time, unlike the individual lawyer.
Sure language models will fail in that way, because they've never had even the rudiments of legal instruction. They know the word "jurisdiction", but they have no inkling of why it might be relevant to their current task.
In a word, they're being given tasks they're neither trained nor designed to do.
I wonder how hard it is to give them that training. Maybe the results in six months time will be different.
More like "Our tireless quality assurance team has remedied some potential issues that have been highlighted by recent adverse press coverage. We remain proud of our safety record and encourage all our customers' passengers to remember that these planes are American, dammit, and the best you can buy."
No, because it would be just as wrongs if it was humans who did the same thing that computers do.
But humans do that. All the time. And have been doing it for... at least a couple of centuries, now, ever since "free press" became a thing.
Long before people even talked about "AI", let alone "LLMs", churnalists would read each other's work, make just enough modifications to file off the serial numbers and regurgitate it. And that was legal, and always has been. And it still is. Reputable newspapers at least have the decency to credit their sources, but believe me, not everyone does.
Why, exactly, is it worse when a machine does this?
"Merits" have nothing to do with it. Musk doesn't expect to win this, nor does he care. The whole point is to be seen to be fighting, regardless of the outcome. That's money in the bank to him.
Trump showed the way. The man has lost something like 95% of all the lawsuits he's ever been involved in, and yet he keeps flinging them at anyone and everything and getting richer. In Trump's case it's because (now) gullible idiots line up to send him money, but before that they were buying his books and sponsoring his TV shows and attending his "university"...
Musk's version is not quite as direct, yet. But he knows fighting the good fight - or rather, being seen to fight it - is worth money from the category of capitalist cunts that he relies on to keep his billions flowing. "Winning the case" - bah, who even cares?
Circa 1990, computing was still newish, and exciting. People went into it because they were keen. They had ideas, they had visions, they had love of the subject matter.
Over the next 30 years, computing became ever more mainstream. Vastly more people went into it, not because they were visionary or excited by it, but because it promised a good, steady paycheck. Those people - by now millions of them, all over the world - want someone to tell them what to do, then they'll do it, and pocket the money and go home.
When you get a large number of those sorts of people in an industry, it changes. They become customers of a sort, and the industry looks after their needs by creating busywork for them to do.
Lots of people do shrug and say nothing should change. (I don't know if they do on this subject, specifically, but it happens on most topics, so it's likely.)
But the media don't publish those interviews. They're just not very interesting to watch, or to talk or speculate about. No, the published interviews - again, across every media topic - are all on the spectrum of "something must be done" to "the sky is falling".
No. Why would you think that?
It sends emails saying things like "Swimming lessons start next Tuesday, so make sure [kid] has their kit". Or "[Kid] will be receiving a certificate at assembly on Friday". And the only names in the To: field are self and spouse, so I assume someone knows how to mail merge.
But CC should be used much more often than BCC. It's only courtesy to let people know who else is privy to your communication.
For instance, my kids' school keeps emailing me and spouse about whatever they think we need to know. I am glad to see both our addresses in the To: field, it saves a whole layer of extra communication and confirmation.
The only time BCC is appropriate is - actually, when exactly? All the use cases I can think of would be better handled by a mail merge.
manipulation of human behavior to circumvent free will
Seriously? You want to give lawyers a reason to argue about "free will"?
A problem that has beaten the finest philosophical minds of the past three centuries, and you're giving freaking lawyers a licence to debate it at $500 an hour?
Can't think who drafted that bit.
I had my first ever spam call from an AI, this week. It said its name was "Chrissy" and it was doing some kind of survey, but it was definitely a robot, so I didn't feel bad about hanging up on it.
Human trafficking is moderately risky and fairly expensive - at least, compared with robots. This is one problem that AI should be able to take care of, probably quicker than law enforcement could do it.
It's not about "helping solve a difficult problem". It's about not making unnecessary assumptions, or at least being aware when you are making them so you can think about their effects and test for them.
This, incidentally, is why I worry when I see and hear about "activist" workforces putting pressure on their employers to take sides on (this or that). Because that's a tell for lack of diversity in the workforce. The assumption that all "right-thinking" people see things the way you do is the root of about half the evil in our world.
They controlled for that. The study shows that it's more stressful to sit through the same presentation onscreen than in person.
Of course that's not the whole story. There's still a lot to be said for telepresence. But it's a part that hasn't been objectively measured before, which is interesting.
If you sell a book, you have no right to specify who can or can't read it, or how, or why. That's *not* one of the rights copyright gives you.
And I for one will fight any attempt to create such a right. It may happen, through some sort of backdoor licensing step as you suggest, but if it tries to come to my jurisdiction, I'm prepared to travel down to parliament and camp in the lobby to make them put a stop to it.
Well, one thing that's hard to understand is your jump from "the datasets contain copyrighted work" to "OpenAI is commercializing copyrighted material". And then you go on to claim that, apparently because of this, it's "violating copyright law", which is a whole other step that doesn't follow logically from the previous one.
If you sell copies you make of a book or other work (that you don't have the right to), it's copyright violation, sure. But OpenAI isn't doing that. It's selling access to a system that has (probably) been trained on this book, among many others. But unless it actually regurgitates significant chunks of text, it's not clear how that's a copyright violation.
Copyright law creates certain very specific, clearly defined "rights" around 1) reproduction, 2) adaptation, 3) publication, 4) performance and 5) display (the "five pillars of copyright"). To make a case against OpenAI, you'd have to demonstrate to a court how it's doing at least one of these things with your work.
The "emerging economies" point out, not unreasonably, that it's the developed countries that have produced nearly all the CO2 to date, and them talking about emissions in the developing world smacks more than a little of (a) pulling the ladder up after them and (b) rampant hypocrisy. If America and Europe and Asia, with all their wealth and infrastructure and knowhow, still can't bring themselves to cut carbon emissions, then what gives any of them the right to demand that Africans do it?
Yes, sure, providing clean energy to the developing world would be great. But unless you can suggest a way to provide it at the same (or lower) cost as coal-fired power stations and in unlimited quantities, you can't blame them for taking as much as they can get and also building more fossil-fuel-powered capacity to top it up.
That's why it's the west that needs to clean up its act. It has all the advantages, it needs to develop the technologies and methods to provide a decent lifestyle for everyone with net-zero, or something close to it, emissions. Once we've shown it's possible, then developing countries can adopt (or improve upon) those innovations. But until then, it's not reasonable to ask them to bear the burden of cleaning up our mess.
Yep, they're back.
It's sad. Back in 2016 this happened. This forum had usually been a reasonably balanced, sensible place, but suddenly you couldn't say anything disparaging about Trump without people jumping down your throat. People who would have been (were) completely silent if you'd said equally (or more) rude things about him a year or two earlier, mind you.
In 2020, for whatever reason, it didn't happen. Sure there were some Trumpists around, but not many, certainly not enough to compete with an overwhelmingly anti-Trumpist consensus.
But now, they're back. Climate denialism is one of the big fronts on this particular forum, so every story that touches on it will draw them out. And I assume it's only going to get worse for approximately the next 12 months. Oh well, we've had about seven years of near-normality; now hunker down, they'll mostly be gone by December 2025.