I would love to see research data pointing either way re #1, although it would be incredibly difficult to do so ethically, verging on impossible. For #2, people have extracted originals or near-originals of inputs to the algorithms. AI generated stuff - plagiarism machine generated stuff, runs the risk of effectively revictimizing people who were already abused to get said inputs.
It's an ugly situation all around, and unfortunately I don't know that much can be done about it beyond not demonizing people who have such drives, who have not offended, so that seeking therapy for the condition doesn't screw them over. Ensuring that people are damned if they do and damned if they don't seems to pretty reliably produce worse outcomes.
Depends on where you start. My mental state was pretty fucked before, and while I can't say my self confidence is amazing, you shoulda seen it then. Definitely not for everyone, tho.
I wonder how different things would be now if Roger Stone (still politically involved Roger Stone who was a major player in the last Trump administration and who has a back tattoo of Nixon) hadn't caused the Brooks Brothers Riot and fucked up the counting of votes in Florida allowing the supreme Court (whoch at the time had multiple clerks that Trump put on the court) to declare Bush the winner.
Yeah, it's been all the same people, fucking stuff up, all along.
I'm well aware, but we don't get to build an AGI and then figure it out, and we can't keep these ones on target, see any number of "funny" errors people posted, up to the paper I can't recall the name of offhand that had all of the examples of even simpler systems being misaligned.
I've been concerned about AI as x risk for years before big tech had a word to say on the matter. It is both possible for it to be a threat, and for large companies to be trying to take advantage of that.
So I think it's less relevant to consider Russia qua Russia here, and think of it more as a negative applause light that has had its valence flipped through the exercise of the massive media machine that the right has built to prevent another Nixon from ever having to resign in disgrace again.
Well, the base is definitely suffering from a tragic lack of gravitas. It helps to be aware that you desire to mistake not your own worldview, for a universal one. "Common sense" is never truly common, but derived from the knowledge and beliefs of the individual.
You don't think nearly 1/6th is statistically significant? What's the lower bound on significance as you see things?
To be clear, it's obviously dumb for their generative system to be overrepresenting turbans like this, although it's likely to be a bias in the inputs rather than something the system came up with itself, I just think that 5% is generally enough to be considered significant and calling three times that not significant confuses me.
It's not an apology if you keep trucking right the fuck on along. You apologize, in part, by fixing the problem. Absent that, it's just empty words. Meaningless.
