Can you describe the specific chain of events required to create a fraudulent vote that is "impossible" to detect?
Surely if you can confidently state the system not only is this way, but is purposely designed this way, you should have zero problem describing it exactly step by step.
Extra credit if you can describe a method that can produce 10, 100, or 1000 votes.
They're a private company, they can ban whoever they want.
Or at least that's what I heard a few years ago when it was politically incorrect people complaining about being banned with no accountability. They're a private company, it's their servers. You may not even be paying anything. So they can do anything they want to you and you have no cause for complaint.
People always use that link as reference to say that Internet Archive ignores robots.txt but it only actually says they are ignoring it for government sites. It suggests that they might do it for other sites in the future (of 2017), but does not actually say that that they have done it.
That first link is confusing; it seems to say they ended up removing the pages not because of a legal threat but because of robots.txt “automated”.
If archive.org can be manipulated to remove content either via legal threats or simple robots.txt it loses a significant portion of its societal value.
Which is true here, except "do anything you want" is "be displeasing to Kuwait".
It's all "they're a private company, they can ban anyone they want" right up until they ban someone who promoters of that idea don't like. Then they're suddenly horrible people for being a private company that bans anyone they want.
> It's all "they're a private company, they can ban anyone they want" right up until they ban someone who promoters of that idea don't like. Then they're suddenly horrible people for being a private company that bans anyone they want.
If they are NOT acting as an impartial aggregator and only censoring/deleting when the law demands, then they should NOT be covered under Section 230.
This is either an "ought to be* statement or it is a deliberate misreading of section 230 and case law. Representatives have proposed enacting this, many times, but platform neutrality is not a requirement under current law.
i dont see why the government needs to be so prescriptive about how companies run?
the current law allows for impartial and biased/focused platforms to exist, so customers can access a variety of platforms and discussion fora.
in your proposal, something like banjo hangout couldnt exist as a platform focused on banjo picking, frailing, and building, because posts debating sailing vs rowing arent allowed
I don't know what the status of this is today, but a number of years ago my biggest complaint about Gutenberg is that a lot of books had images added back when low resolution images were the standard, so you have a ton of books with image resolutions from the year 2000.
No, it isn't. The book was written during the Great Depression. We're not in the Great Depression now. Pretty much nobody nobody is dying of malnutrition in the US and nobody is dying of pellagra specifically, because we've invented fortifying food with vitamins.
But the big difference is that the peach trees are being destroyed because nobody wants the peaches. That's the exact opposite of the quote, in which there are starving people clamoring for the food and the food is being destroyed to raise the price.
> To be sure, we wouldn’t yet call it commonplace. But while it accounts for fewer than 1 in 100 deaths, its toll is rising so fast that it’s now in the same league as arterial disease, mental disorders and deaths from assault.
Am I reading the charts correctly that 20% of under-54s have "marginal, low or very low food security" with it being over 30% of under-14s? If so, focusing only on deaths is missing a huge part of this.
That looks right to me. Of course, the definition of food security can be disputed, but it seems like improving people's diets or access to quality food should be a priority.
> The source we used, a supplement to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, has been canceled by the Agriculture Department. The upcoming release could be the last.
My intuition on this is like training a classifier on four classes: dog, cat, cow and IDK. It feels intuitive to us but really hard to do in practice.
In the classifier case, we are leveraging a subset of data to train the model to give correct answers to unseen data. If we want the model to generalize to unseen data we need it to call unseen dog-like things a dog. If not, then all unseen dogs would be IDK.
Learning that boundary of "known vs unknown" is very hard. If done poorly, you have a model that cannot abstract to anything that is not in the dataset which is a huge part of what makes these models so impressive.
I'm sure there is more to it than this but I does not surprise me that it is an unsolved problem.
Yeah, they only “proved” hallucination is inevitable by defining it to be any case where the llm doesn’t provide the “correct” answer. By this definition, an LLM deciding not to answer is also a “hallucination”.
reply