This is a different scenario, though. The Hannibal directive is specifically targeting YOU, not the vehicle.
So your scenario should be more like:
You have armed militants who take you hostage, putting you in the front seat of the van
Would you rather they:
- do nothing now, and try to rescue you when safely possible
- shoot you in the head
I’ll be the guy who suggests the unusual options, then:
a steam controller; they take some getting used to, but they have some really nice quality of life features that nothing else has (mouse control via the joystick pads, and the paddles on the back!) and are ideal for bigger hands as it’s nice and chunky. They’re built specifically for PC use, so the support is as good as it gets. I think they don’t feel as “premium” as they’re quite lightweight plastic as opposed to the heavy metal of e.g. Xbox elite
the Nintendo Switch Pro controller; this one wins on the durability front imo, all Nintendo’s stuff is built to survive children, so they do a lot of drop testing, pouring drinks over it, basically all those fun things kids like to do to your expensive toys
I’m not necessarily saying they’re conflicting goals, merely that they’re not the same goal.
The incentive for the generator becomes “generate propaganda that doesn’t have the language chatacteristics of typical LLMs”, so the incentive is split between those goals. As a simplified example, if the additional incentive were “include the word bamboo in every response”, I think we would both agree that it would do a worse job at its original goal, since the constraint means that outputs that would have been optimal previously are now considered poor responses.
Meanwhile, the detector network has a far simpler task - given some input string, give back a value representing the confidence it was output by a system rather than a person.
I think it’s also worth considering that LLMs don’t “think” in the same way people do - where people construct an abstract thought, then find the best combinations of words to express that thought, an LLM generates words that are likely to follow the preceding ones (including prompts). This does leave some space for detecting these different approaches better than at random, even though it’s impossible to do so reliably.
But I guess really the important thing is that people running these bots don’t really care if it’s possible to find that the content is likely generated, just so long as it’s not so obvious that the content gets removed. This means they’re not really incentivised to spend money training models to avoid detection.
Sure, but then the generator AI is no longer optimised to generate whatever you wanted initially, but to generate text that fools the detector network, thus making the original generator worse at its intended job.
That’s a very silly take
believe that hierarchical violence was invented in the 20th century
Well that’s just not what I said - you specifically said fascism, which was invented in the 20th century. It has more specific characteristics than just hierarchical violence; ethno-nationalism, militarisation of the state, flexible suppression of opposition and centralised autocracy.
Just because you’re mad about being corrected doesn’t mean you need to be a dick about it.
Democracy has existed far longer than fascism has… the earliest fascist movements weren’t until the 1910s, while the earliest recorded democracy was around 508 BC, with the earliest recorded usage of the term in the 430s BC. You’re wrong by a margin of millennia
My dear god, this is history fundamentals. And the sheer balls you’ve got to have to be that rude while being just this severely wrong is obscene.
I’ve seen a lot of answers with other good reasons, but I think the main reason has slipped under the radar: the US wants to control the naval routes (via Baffin Bay) between the Atlantic and Pacific through the arctic which are progressively opening up more due to climate change.
Currently Denmark and Canada each control one side of that passage, but changing either to being under US control would effectively allow them to control trade flows through those routes.
Democracy isn’t a magic anti-fascist spell, sorry to break it to you. If someone can convince enough of the population to elect them, then they get into power, fascist or not.
By your definition, there really hasn’t been a “real” democracy ever, frankly, since it depends on there being a state with no imbalance of wealth whatsoever. If that’s how you want to define it, sure, go ahead, but I’m going to keep using a definition of democracy that’s based on how the institutions of elections and the state are built, because that’s a useful way to discuss political systems, and “democracy is when only leaders I like are elected” is not.
Brazil’s leaders are elected through universal suffrage, its speech and media are (relatively) free, that’s a democracy by any reasonably useful definition. There’s plenty to criticise in how that democracy functions, especially how money and power can influence those outcomes, but there is no perfect democracy, just the best attempts at what people can build within their existing social systems.
Democracy is a political system, while capitalism is an economic system - understanding how they interact with each other is useful and important, but pretending they’re mutually exclusive is unnecessarily reductive, and closes the space to actually discuss those things.
Edit: the mere fact that Bolsonaro attempted to retain power by force, but was unable to do so in the face of losing the election is direct evidence that there are functional democratic institutions in Brazil
And now it isn’t, that’s democracy, baby
I fully agree that Bolsonaro was a straight up demon, but I also agree with the idea that - currently - the administration of Brazil is probably about as good an example of a good world citizen as it gets
Oh yeah, Russia is real good at keeping those tech oligarchs in check /s
BRICS is such a loosely linked group that generalising like that is just never going to be accurate; Indian and South African, for example, policy on tech regulation couldn’t be more different if they tried.
Don’t get me wrong, I think BRICS is a good organisation for economic cooperation between these very diverse countries, but there’s really no common political, social or economic characteristics.
Brazil is a good example of that, because under Bolsonaro, it couldn’t have been more different - regulations on big tech and banning X would never have happened under his tenure (well, at least not with the same goals)
It’s somewhat specific to social media, but otherwise is very generic “anything critical of authority” answer imo
Plus, as you say, we have no idea what the actual prompt or response were 🤷
I’m not sure this is actually meaningful - presumably grok doesn’t actually have knowledge of the twitter algorithm itself, so this is just a run of the mill AI make-it-up-on-the-spot response
They don’t do that, because as a service, it continues to cost them money to provide it as time goes on.
That’s not their business model, and acting like it’s equivalent to ransomware for them to not use the business model you’re demanding they switch to is absurd.
If you want to keep your cloud services, pay the subscription cost, it’s that simple.
Okay, I too could afford to pay for your OneDrive subscription, but I’m not going to because - frankly - I don’t care about your cloud storage needs.
The fact they’re technically capable of providing you something for free has nothing to do with whether they are legally or morally obligated to do so.
You’re not the centre of the universe, sorry.
The fact that all of those services have costs - so what you’re effectively saying is that the companies should pay for these things for you whenever you demand it
If they promised you X service for a certain period of time when they purchased something, then you have a right to that service for that period of time. But if they didn’t do that, it just happens that the same company sells that service as a separate product to what you bought, then of course you don’t have a right to it.
If you’re asking whether the rules for services you’ve paid for are different to the rules for services you haven’t paid for then yes, absolutely.
If someone is providing a service at no cost, they have no obligation to continue that service, because you have not provided them anything in exchange for anything.
“I want” is not a valid legal argument for having a right to something.
No, because that’s not what tips are for? But if you don’t pay for the groceries, then yeah, they should be allowed to not give you the groceries, because that’s how buying things works
But if you specifically agree to pay someone a certain amount of money to load your groceries in advance, then refuse to pay them, it’s totally valid for them to not load your groceries, because you didn’t pay for the service you bought
Jesus Christ on a bike
Oh cool, domestic terrorism. How fun and quirky of you