Nah, they just respectfully said no to their face, which prompted him to make a big threat display and post another message with caps and exclamation signs on social media.
Cut off those using ad hominems. Fact check. All opinion should be labelled. Only one identity per person. Any associations or biases are public.
Do all that then I can't see what's hard about it ;oP.
Genuinely though, I think those things are doable. You probably have to have people use their own irl identities (at least the platform needs that information), which is problematic if you want free and open debate.
Fact checking is basically impossible as most things aren’t black and white and open to various interpretations. The idea of fact checkers online has been totally rejected because fact checkers themselves are vulnerable to bias and ideological capture.
Indeed. A few years ago I spent a lot of time "fact checking" things, and it's nearly impossible because there is way more speculation/interpretation of "facts" than most people think. Misleading headline writing makes this even worse because a lot of people don't read beyond the headline, or if they do they interpret the factual body of the article through a lens framed by the headline. The NY Times are exceptionally good at this. Read the article and it's factually correct, but different interpretations and the subtle insertion of opinions (often through headlines) . I'm not trying to shit on NYT here. NYT is still among the best sources, despite their imperfections. But it illustrates well the challenge.
Perfect fact checking, sure, but fact checking to the point of "this information comes from here", this person said this in this video, et cetera, is attainable.
The author's bias - it's different for each specific author. We should not pretend that there are moderators without bias, each AI-driven moderation tool inherits the bias of its human author.
The LLMs that power all that are "aligned", that is, they're subjected to manipulation to install specific bias in them, and so on.
As an AI language model, MY FELLOW OXYGEN CONVERTING HUMAN, I am not able to be sarcastic.
I generally don't engage in debates and prefer actual conversations and discussions. These are not the same, but regardless of that:
Do you want to be forced to "learn" how to behave? The most common reply to this question, in such a context, usually is ...
"Nobody is getting forced, they can always leave."
... but that's not how it works on a bigger scale.
It's not like this will be the only platform having a Big Brother telling you how to behave. Every platform will have one eventually, (not only, but also) because more and more people who, for whatever reason, don't want to behave the way they "should", will flock to "free" platforms.
These platforms will then also need their own Big Brother, because that's the obvious solution to a culture shock caused by an "Eternal September"-event [1]: Strict moderation. The only alternative to that is a paywall.
The question shouldn't be "Isn't the point that 'they' get lessons in proper debate?", the question should be:
Are humans, as a collective of supposedly intelligent beings, really in such a bad state that we need a Big Brother to tell us how to think? That's what this is actually is about:
Teaching people how to think "properly", so they will create better responses ... or else.
Are people talking about the rather significant "or else" ?
It also removes the social aspects (adapting to group-behaviour, or else people will shit on you) and replaces that with an Authority dictating it.
You might as well accept me as your Authority, you know? You don't, though. You know why, right? It's because you don't perceive me as Authority, rightfully so, as one should not blindly perceive or accept anyone/anything as an Authority.
Big Brother is going to tell people how to think and behave and they will blindly follow, because obviously Big Brother knows best. Or, from a different perspective:
People don't know how to think intelligently. If they knew, we'd not need a Big Brother for that. Since they don't know, they lack the ability to question Big Brother's judgement on the matter, making them vulnerable for manipulation.
Ultimately, as always, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Short-sightedness will lead to a future in which people's behaviour more and more gets locked down, because there will always come the next guy who will declare:
"It's not yet enough, but one more step and then it's proper."
> Just to be clear -- we aren't "forcing" anyone to behave. We are trying to "nudge" and "educate".
Sure! I could believe that, but there's no reason to do so. Promises and stated intentions mean nothing. You can easily change your mind, or eventually be replaced by someone who thinks differently. Or, you know, as indicated by your questionable usage of quotation marks ... simply not be honest about it.
> I also believe that if I have a blog with comments, it's perfectly fine for me to set the rules about discourse on my blog. Right?
"False equivalency is a logical fallacy where two subjects are incorrectly considered equivalent based on flawed reasoning, often oversimplifying their differences. It typically occurs when a shared trait is assumed to indicate equality, despite significant differences in context or magnitude."
Of course! A blog is definitively absolutely comparable to a social website visited by tens of thousands of people every day. Right?
You are not being honest. You hide the true meaning of the words behind quotation marks. If you actually meant what you're writing, then you would not need to use the quotation marks.
Instead it's "nudging" and "educating", because you know exactly that what that thing is going to do is NOT nudging and educating, it's whatever meaning you hide behind these quotation marks.
Will they realise their life has devolved to pretending an LLM is them and watching whilst the LLM interfaces {I was going to say 'interacts', not this fits!} with other bots.
Will they then go outside whilst 'their' bot "owns the libs" or whatever?
Hopefully at some point there is a Damascus road awakening.
Well the theory is the market will offer alternatives that allow consumers to choose the best products.
But in reality capitalists get to choose the products and use advertising to brainwash us into wanting whatever shit they're shoveling.
Capitalism is supposed to optimise production for efficiency. In reality the people holding the principal capital use it to optimise for profit and we're largely impotent to do anything because they'll just lean more on the 'brainwash' aspect of profitability... Maybe go so far as to sway elections, to put in fascists so they can exercise larger handles of control... all to get a favorable tax regime when they've already got more money than they can spend.
Ho-hum.
I think there's a way out, through cooperatives, possibly, but it's a multi-generational path before you can really start to make change.
He made a cypher with a school friend, which cypher was handed by a stranger to the FBI and investigated. That one possible outcome of the investigation might be 'the subject is a Japanese spy' doesn't mean _he_ was suspected of that; not by the FBI at least.
If he said, "I made a cypher in school", then likely the form would have been considered fine? Presumably his record clearly showed the FBI incident, so I'm surprised that lying in the second form didn't cause concern sufficient to question him. But there you go; I've never had any associations with TLAs, what would I know.
Like, they haven't paid me a bribe? That seems to be the only "politics" at play in Trumps head.
reply