Invertedouroboros

You know, there's that old yarn about Alfred Nobel. That his obituary was accidentally published early and that he was shocked and dismayed to discover that the only thing he'd be remembered for was the invention of Dynamite. So, he went on to create the Nobel Peace Prize, in the hopes of contributing something other than death to the world.

I'm not saying Nobel was a fantastic dude, but at least he cared enough to not be remembered as the guy that made it possible for your son to get blown to peices in a war. He wanted something positive associated with name.

Even that seems too high a bar for these folks. They've become so entrenched in their own little world that I don't think they much care what anyone outside it thinks.

Obviously this is all stupid and you'll find problems anywhere you choose to look.

The problem I'm finding is this, if Facebook truly is betting on AI becoming better as a way to encourage growth then why are they further poisoning their own datasets? Like ok, even if you exclude everything your own bots say from your training data, which you could probably do since you know who they are, this is still encouraging more AI slop on the platform. You don't know how much of the "engagement" your driving (which they are likely just turning around and feeding back into the AI training set) is actually human, AI grifter, or someone poisoning the well by making your AIs talk to themselves. If you actually cared to make your AI better, then you can't use any of the responses to your bots as most of them will be of dubious providence at best.

Personally I'm rooting on the coming Hapsburg-AI issue so I don't really have that much of a problem with Facebook deciding more poison is a brilliant business move. But uh... seems real dumb if your actually interested in having an actually functional LLM.

Yeah, fucked up though it might be, I think that within the moral framework she's chosen to operate in she's "doing the right thing". That framework is monstrous and should be disqualifying for a position on the judiciary. But I think she’s got no moral qualms and would treat the morality that most of us have with a mixture of confusion and hostility.

God, I was just breathing a sigh of relief till this poped up a moment later.

The South Korean military says it will maintain martial law until it is lifted by President Yoon Suk Yeol, despite the nation's parliament voting to block its enforcement, according to the country's national broadcaster.

Hope that's just postureing.

So, the following is a genuine question and not a snide remark.

Does that matter? Is the military going to respect that? I'd heard prior to this that the military had forbade parliament from gathering. What's to say they don't just side with Yoon?Certainly wouldn't be the first time in history that a nation's military has dictated the corse of the nation's civil future. I really hate asking questions like this but I'm just not familiar enough with the politics of South Korea to know if this a done and dusted thing or if the military is likely to go for a coup if Yoon pitches it.

I can't remember when I came to the realization, but for years now I thought that if (and I would love to hold on to the naive hope that it is an "if") WW3 breaks out then the battle lines would be drawn between the forces of autocracy and democracy. Those would be our sides.

Now, I'm not even sure democracy is gonna make it out the gate... America's elected a dictator who's aligned with Russia who is itself a major factor of this unholy autocratic alliance with China, North Korea, and Iran... Now this?

There were no "good guys" in world war 1. It was the result of squabbleing European powers not realizing the destructive potential modern military technology had and how much that changed the game. It needed to happen in the sense that countries couldn't continue to act the way they had prior to the great war, but that doesn't mean anyone was in the right.

It's hard to imagine "good guys" in world war 3 either. Increasingly, it kinda just seems like it's a choice between "what shit flavor of authoritarianism do you hate less?". Assuming that question even matters considered all the nuclear weapons that could fly in a third world war.

I dunno man, shit's just looking pretty fucking bleak.

Walking through the streets of soho in the rain.

Probably fudges his rolls when playing with AI too.

I'll confess I've had the same thought... but I feel like the problem is deeper than that. If people don't have basic awareness of the devices they rely on then they in danger of becoming victims of those who do. I'd point to your average boomer on Facebook to illustrate that point.

Is it the tech? Or is it media literacy?

I've messed around with AI on a lark, but would never dream of using it on anything important. I feel like it's pretty common knowledge that AI will just make shit up if it wants to, so even when I'm just playing around with it I take everything it says with a heavy grain of salt.

I think ease of use is definitely a component of it, but in reading your message I can't help but wonder if the problem instead lies in critical engagement. Can they read something and actively discern whether the source is to be trusted? Or are they simply reading what is put in front of them then turning around to you and saying "well, this is what the magic box says. I don't know what to tell you.".

It's kinda wild to me. I used to think that as a millennial the next generation would be more technically savvy than mine for similar reasons to why my generation was more technically savvy than the last. That doesn't quite seem to have panned out and I'm not sure if I'm just not seeing things right or if technical literacy is really that much on the decline.

The age of consent is 16 in Georgia? Somehow I'm not surprised, just disgusted.