The idea seems quite roboust to me and I can envisage a future where companies that provide access to LLMs would also publish a detection tool for their models.
2,591 karma · joined February 4, 2014
The idea seems quite roboust to me and I can envisage a future where companies that provide access to LLMs would also publish a detection tool for their models.
In the US about 30 million adults have a police initialed encounter per year[1]. It seems obvious to me that the vast, vast majority of these encounters end in the way common-sense would dictate, and that only very few have the shocking, blood-boiling finale that can make you angry enough to demand reform. But equally obvious is that these are the exact stories that are attention grabbing and therefor news worthy (at least in the click-through sense). I remind myself of this prevalence perception skewing effect that the news has whenever I read it and I try to actively resist it.
This reminds me of an 20yo comedy skit (that probably wouldn't be made today) by Chris Rock called "How not to get your ass kicked by the police!" which seems to say the same thing. [2]
Of course I might be mistaken. I wonder if people here have data to prove otherwise?
---
[1] https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
Perhaps you can add this as optional instructions to the decryption page.
Here (Israel) a Credit Card is always connected to a bank account and at the end of each month the accumulated debt is just recovered from the balance. It's done automatically and you would get a very stern phone call (from your bank) if you balance is not enough.
Of course, the CC companies and banks would be happy to give you a loan with outrageous interest rates, but that takes a phone call, or a form on their website.
From a human fallibility point of view, American CCs are evil.
Adding this HTTP header makes your site not work if embedded.
> what would be the lyrics if yellow submarine was about jews?
Verse 1
We all live in a yellow submarine, A Jewish vessel far beneath the sea, Where everyone is proud of their family, And each one is special to me.
Chorus
We sail the oceans, sky and sea, Our Jewish submarine is mighty and free, From the Western Wall to the Golden Land, We all live in a yellow submarine.
Verse 2
From the mighty Torah to a Seder night, Our heritage shines a guiding light, A celebration of our faith and our culture, We’re a people united and strong.
Chorus
We sail the oceans, sky and sea, Our Jewish submarine is mighty and free, From the Western Wall to the Golden Land, We all live in a yellow submarine.
Verse 3
From the Shtetls of Europe to the shores of America, We’ve faced adversity and we’ve overcome, With deep faith and strength we will continue, To survive and thrive in unity.
Chorus
We sail the oceans, sky and sea, Our Jewish submarine is mighty and free, From the Western Wall to
> A YouGov poll of more than 23,000 Americans finds that about a quarter (25%) of Americans say they would be interested in having an open relationship.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/society/articles-reports/202...
People that advocate for it (like me) just wishfully assume that their listeners, if they just try, will reach the same conclusions they did. But that just isn't true. I've met many people that held (what I consider to be) debunked beliefs which they proclaimed to have reached through "doing their own research". In a way these people are harder to sway than those that "just feel it's true". They are armed with research papers, lecturing experts (self proclaimed perhaps), and logical constructs. They hold their ground in an argument.
And perhaps they are not at fault. The truth can be non-intuitive on several levels, and distilling it from truckloads of data, papers, and experts really isn't easy. Take for example the seemingly simple question of whether or not climate change is man-made or not. It is not at all an easy matter for someone to reach their own conclusion about this. Any argument, how ever sound it may seem, may be wrong in some subtle non-intuitive way that would more digging and learning to figure out.
I've come to realize that in this question (and many others) I can't justify trusting my own judgement and the best heuristic I could come up with is "trusting the expert consensus". Sure it can be wrong, but I hold the belief that it tends to self correct eventually, and in many cases (especially when many people need to form an option) it's the best we can do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
I'm no expert but given the excess of carbon in the air, it's not out of the question that a viable way forward is actually using more light plastic materials, not bothering with recycling or alternatives (when these are not cost/energy effective), and just putting it in big holes where they will presumable stay unscathed, until (maybe) some day it would be worthwhile to dig them out and reuse the carbon. The whole life cycle is generally carbon neutral, and might even offset more energy demanding alternative products.
I feel that the general aversion to plastic is due to problems that arose more from waste mismanagement that caused the Great Pacific Garbage Patch for example, and not necessarily from the lifecycle of the products themselves.
More importantly perhaps, I am willing (and actually want) to have the freedom to do this, and to take responsibility for any problems I might cause for myself.
This issue is part of a more general ethical conundrum spanning many areas of life: How much should people be protected from themselves? I guess my personal answer is, not a lot.
Both in terms of the jaw-dropping technical setup (full VR rig AND real-time brain imaging for untethered flies), and the results (proof of otherwise unknowable cognitive abilities) with interesting philosophical implications about the differentiation we humans perform when categorizing animals (for example, is killing a fly morally different than killing a horse/cow?)
Perhaps your Twitter-share-path-to-virality could be an image of green boxes (a-la Wordle) with the lengths of the words in decreasing order?
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][]
[][][][]
[][][][]
Perhaps also with the score of each word if that's not too much of a giveaway.
Without going into the discussion of whether or not people should be able to accumulate huge fortunes in the first place, given the fact that they exist, such spending means that they are putting huge sums of money back into the hands of "the people": In exchange for this boat, Bezos is moving 500M$ from his bank account to the bank accounts of many, many people working on it directly and indirectly thus moving the pendulum a tiny bit towards financial equality. Considering that the real-world alternative was for him to not have done this, remain under the radar, and keep 500M laying around, I think this is the better option.
I didn't peek and ended up with the same solution as you, so for an extra bit of fun I tried to golf it to be as short as possible. There's probably room for much improvement: (94 chars)
setInterval("l=loopTapApp;b=l.getBallAngle();a=l.arc;b+6>a[0]&b-6<a[1]&&l.tap(new Event(1))")
I used to have a few of my vice sites blocked on the "Hosts" level on windows. Unblocking this had enough friction for my self to not do on a whim, but them we came to the realization that Google Translate (with "Show Original") can be used to get Google to show me the site from the unblocked google domain...
To my shame I actually did that absent-mindedly over and over, and that was the end of that little experiment.
Put more generally: How much should we protect people from themselves?
In the not-so-distant past, I'm guessing, the answer to that for most people was: Very little. After all, adults are capable and expected to make rational choices and do so every day; for themselves, and the people they cate about. So giving them more options is just helpful...
But the past few decades have perhaps opened our eyes. From Kahneman & Tversky, behavioral economics and cognitive biases, to the smartphone (and other screens) epidemic that rages everywhere the device is in use.
It's become extremely clear that "adults" are not very good at being rational and self-controling. At least when they are put up aginst corporations who employe armies of professional mind hackers whos sole job is to make them lose the battle.
So the debate isn't really Control vs. Freedom anymore. Its more like Protection vs. Jungle Law.
And still, though we've realized the stakes are higher than we first thought, the right moral choice is unclear. Perhaps the idea of protecting ourselves from commercial predetors should be seen as childishly quixotic as the idea of protecting Deer from lions. Especially since the "Lions" are us too. We (though in smaller numbers) are also the benefactors of these questionable actions.
But then again, no one likes to be prohibited from doing what they want, and that's a great, and fairly new, right that we have (with restrictions of course). We should be quick to hamper it.
Good question...