Nice but paywalled for me

You know what, we don’t need to be always on the same page. Sure, it’s good when we are, but we don’t need to echo each other’s views and that’s ok :) Cheers

Hmm well if you don’t mind a bit of unsolicited advice, I would say that (from the frustrations you express) maybe you, like most of us, enter discussions online with a mind to convince others of the absolute truth of what you believe in. It is actually more productive to listen to them, then ask why they feel the way they do about certain topics, and then try to see if you can find common ground with them. Only then can you perhaps influence their views a little. But if you are earnest about the exchange, you must allow them to influence you too.

I know that’s hard, I fail often myself and become frustrated.

Of course there are conspiracy theories and falsehoods that are absolutely bonkers and it stymies me too why some people will gobble it all up, but a wise person is never too sure of their own truths either. Funny thing is we are all biased one way or another, we just tend to be blind to our own biases. Of course some truths are supported by more evidence than others, but especially when it comes to politics it is less about the absolute truth of a matter than it is about adopting a particular perspective. No single perspective is more valid than others inherently. It is all just ways of looking at things. Of course one can try and come up with objective criteria, but that too is quite hard.

I am aware, and it’s good you brought this up. All sides are gullible, but some perhaps more than others. Although, the very study you posted a link to states clearly that other studies have had mixed results. Are you posting this one because, as a political scientist, you know the field and studies referenced and can assert with confidence acquired through disciplined study that this work provides better proof that conservatives are indeed more gullible (where other studies failed), or are you posting it because it appears to confirm your a priori views of conservatives?

Apart from the actual truth of the matter, I made my comment above because I believe that looking down on conservative concerns and viewpoints - something that is naturally aided by any perceptions of conservatives as gullible simpletons - has not served liberals well. In fact, it’s something that right wing populists have been able to exploit quite well to gain the sympathy and ultimately the vote of large swathes of said simpletons.

People are gullible, not just right-wingers. You’re just more likely to perceive the other side as gullible and not notice the blind spots of your own. And well, we are living in a moment in history of a surge in right wing populism, which puts that side’s gullibility in full frontal display.

I think you’re making a valid point about fleeing persecution, which is a perfectly rational decision for one’s self-preservation, but the keyboard warriors will downvote you because it sounds like you’re advocating for relinquishing Palestinian lands to Israel.

You weren’t alone in this

Though I am not a lawyer by training, I have been involved in such debates personally and professionally for many years. This post is unfortunately misguided. Copyright law makes concessions for education and creativity, including criticism and satire, because we recognize the value of such activities for human development. Debates over the excesses of copyright in the digital age were specifically about humans finding the application of copyright to the internet and all things digital too restrictive for their educational, creative, and yes, also their entertainment needs. So any anti-copyright arguments back then were in the spirit specifically protecting the average person and public-serving non-profit institutions, such as digital archives and libraries, from big copyright owners who would sue and lobby for total control over every file in their catalogue, sometimes in the process severely limiting human potential.

AI’s ingesting of text and other formats is “learning” in name only, a term borrowed by computer scientists to describe a purely computational process. It does not hold the same value socially or morally as the learning that humans require to function and progress individually and socially.

AI is not a person (unless we get definitive proof of a conscious AI, or are willing to grant every implementation of a statistical model personhood). Also AI it is not vital to human development and as such one could argue does not need special protections or special treatment to flourish. AI is a product, even more clearly so when it is proprietary and sold as a service.

Unlike past debates over copyright, this is not about protecting the little guy or organizations with a social mission from big corporate interests. It is the opposite. It is about big corporate interests turning human knowledge and creativity into a product they can then use to sell services to - and often to replace in their jobs - the very humans whose content they have ingested.

See, the tables are now turned and it is time to realize that copyright law, for all its faults, has never been only or primarily about protecting large copyright holders. It is also about protecting your average Joe from unauthorized uses of their work. More specifically uses that may cause damage, to the copyright owner or society at large. While a very imperfect mechanism, it is there for a reason, and its application need not be the end of AI. There’s a mechanism for individual copyright owners to grant rights to specific uses: it’s called licensing and should be mandatory in my view for the development of proprietary LLMs at least.

TL;DR: AI is not human, it is a product, one that may augment some tasks productively, but is also often aimed at replacing humans in their jobs - this makes all the difference in how we should balance rights and protections by law.

That is what the Chinese leadership likes to claim. That it’s cultural, and their culture is one of trade and cooperation, not expansion. And I don’t doubt that they are earnest in saying that. I mean they truly believe themselves to be different. But we know that once a power becomes global, i.e. when its interests and investments extend well beyond its borders, its military presence will also expand, and it will engage in conflict to protect said global interests. Whether it’s the US, Russia, or China, the dynamic at a certain level is the same. China is already growing a more formidable army and expanding into the South China Sea. This is only the beginning.

Lusted after one as a teenager but could not afford one. It was a bit of a luxury item where I grew up.

Among the sad stories about climate scientists having to deal with misinformation and abuse on the regular, suddenly, a unicorn: a statement purportedly by Musk that I wholeheartedly agree with:

Musk wrote in January: “People on the right should see more ‘left-wing’ stuff and people on the left should see more ‘right-wing’ stuff. But you can just block it if you want to stay in an echo chamber.”

Of course with the average Xitter post becoming ever more toxic, most people that have anything of value to add will probably leave sooner or later, whether lefties or righties or whatever.

Maybe we should stop making news out of every ridiculous thing he does, because this is one way he manages to stay on top of the news cycle even when he has nothing of substance to say. Ridicule him, yes, but maybe also don’t pay too much attention because it feeds him.

Probably because many local women would outright reject the Taliban, as partners and as masters, if they had a say. Educated women especially would run circles around them.

And to think I grew up at a time when Intel reigned supreme. My my.

I find the helix-like symmetry in Berlin quite pleasing

We need to look outside of social media. Doesn’t mean the media we consume don’t play a role in shaping opinions. The short attention spans and highly simplified messaging encouraged by endless scrolling on social media platforms play right into the hands of populists who trade in slogans, scapegoats and easy solutions. The algorithm takes care of the rest. Once you’ve expressed an interest in politically edgy content, you will be served more of that, to the point where your perception of reality will be completely shaped by that.

So there is no evidence, just speculation. Nothing to see here then.

It’s become more efficient to get basic info on virtually any topic by just asking an LLM like ChatGPT and that could be a serious threat to Google Search. People might form the habit of asking AIs for everything and then go to Google Search only when they want to dig deeper / find relevant articles etc. So I assume they added their own AI right into Search in an effort to continue being the first (and perhaps only) place one goes to for information.

The amount of anti-Russia comments on account of a known issue in competitive sports is disturbing. Does everything nowadays have to be about either “Russia bad” or “China bad”? Can’t it be about how exceptionally talented young people are pressured into doping because of ever increasing and often impossible to reach performance standards? I feel we have collectively lost a sense of measure in our response and have replaced a global outlook seeing global solutions to global problems with a nationalistic and sectarian us vs them attitude. And shudder to think that inside those countries it is exactly the same in reverse, possibly worse even.

I am sorry but as you can tell by the number of downvotes received logic, nuance, and difference of perspective are not allowed these days on some English language forums when it comes to Russia. You must qualify all your statements with “Russia bad” and just join in the warmongering /s