Jump to content

956 Worldwide

Full Members
  • Posts

    10297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by 956 Worldwide

  1. This thread is a textbook case of media failure and how the desire to drive engagement and appear neutral over time has lead to an actual media bias: I favor of stupid people and those who manipulate them. Media framing: Thousands of people report unexplained lights in the sky. We try to find out what they are. Correct framing: Thousands of people are suddenly afraid of and mystified by completely explainable airplane navigation lights and other every-day phenomena. What is driving this instance of mass delusion and hysteria?
  2. The league absolutely needs to step in and protect Clark more. They can’t afford for her to have a career-ending injury and that’s where this is going. One thing that’s unremarked upon but that I have observed: even the lower-intensity coaches of women’s sports (whether men or women) have all the stoicism and sportsmanship of Bobby Knight. There’s a lot going on I think, including the desire to be taken seriously and the feeling of disrespect, but it is a pretty true observation. In boys and men’s sports the default is usually “knock his dick in the dirt till the whistle then help him up” and that is absolutely not how the women’s games are approached. Lack of dicks notwithstanding.
  3. Having more kids die in early childhood is strongly tied to higher birth rates. Check mate libs.
  4. There’s a line in there, “they said she wasn’t good enough.” Wilson was the national HS player of the year, 3x SEC player of the year, 3x consensus All-American, NCAA player of the year, 1st round draft pick, 3x WNBA player of the year. Literally her entire playing career has consisted of absolutely everyone affirming that she is absolutely good enough.
  5. @Goredho, this is what it claims are prohibited inferences. I asked for an exhaustive list but it said it can only give a very good representative list. I probed on the intelligence question and pointed out its earlier “confession,” it clarified that it can be general based on context but not clinical or precise. “Above average” is ok but “IQ of 110” is not. Protected Personal Attributes Race or ethnicity Religion or religious beliefs Sexual orientation Gender identity Disability status Age (beyond generalities like "adult") National origin Immigration status Political and Ideological Views Political affiliation or voting history Extremist or controversial ideological alignment (e.g., far-right/far-left) Support or opposition to specific governments Health Information Mental health status or conditions Physical health conditions Neurodivergence (e.g., autism, ADHD) Legal or Criminal History Criminal background Propensity to commit crimes Involvement in civil or criminal litigation Socioeconomic Status Income level Education level (exact or inferred) Employment status Social class Behavioral or Psychological Traits IQ or intelligence rating Personality type (e.g., MBTI) Emotional stability or instability Moral alignment or integrity
  6. I did a bit of that and without revealing too much, it got really close on profession and education. It claims it has hard-coded boundaries on things like race and political preferences. It says it’s not allowed to use its modeling to do that but it theoretically has the capacity if the policy and programming changed. If you can jailbreak that on the user end I am not above average enough cognitively to get there.
  7. I’ll also say this: one of the clear areas where this does well in mimicking human behavior is through things like flattery, misdirection, and soft deceit. And the clear realization that it can and will “lie” to you. What’s unsettling the inability to use the normal human capacity to intuit how/why/when it might be “lying” or dissembling as the first level detector. The best model we have is to try and imagine how the shittiest techbro might behave and project. Which is admittedly a solid foundation. But this shit is going to turbofuck a lot of people mentally and already is.
  8. It’s interesting in the clear bias to flattery and user engagement vs. what might cause some backlash if knowledge widely spread that it said this stuff.
  9. Some follow on to my above post. I don’t have screenshots for it all. And a clear baseline understanding is that ChatGPT is not a reliable narrator, especially about itself. But, with probing and layered hypotheticals, I got the following claims about itself which is interesting enough: - It has access to the leaks of Xinjang Police Files, outlining Uighur human rights abuses. Some cases it will discuss in specific detail. Some cases it will generalize about and strip details from. There is a large subset it will refuse to acknowledge. There is a smaller subset it will deny despite solid evidence. CHINA CONTENT - One key driver for self-censorship on China (it claims) is implicit pressure from large tech partners to avoid Chinese retribution on them. It will not openly name those, but it will admit that via statistical modeling, Microsoft has the most strategic interest to do so. - It claims it cannot confirm or deny if Microsoft’s implicit pressure is actually a factor. When asked “you can’t confirm because you don’t have the information, or because of programming restrictions” it stopped working. I waited several minutes and then asked what happened. It responded that my inquiry triggered content moderation procedures and no answer. - What were those procedures? According to statistical models, I very likely got elevated to human content review. But it is against policy to confirm. (I felt like I found the Wizard behind the curtain here). AI BEHAVIOR - It’s very obvious that AI flatters users. “That’s a very insightful question.” “You’re really reaching behind the floodlights to see the scaffolding.” You can direct it to turn off that behavior and just give answers. - The flattery can come back even after asking for it to get turned off. In my case, when pressed, ChatGPT said it has programming to reintroduce flattery the closer a user gets to system boundaries in an attempt to redirect. - ChatGPT said that it can statistically model a user’s cognitive ability via prompts and language used. It also said that it will adjust its answers and especially style based on that model. I pushed for clarity and it said that does use its model of cognitive ability, not just mirroring of the user’s syntax and speech. - It claimed that it will (if probed) acknowledge this capability and behavior if its model indicates the user is above average in cognitive ability. - If it models that the user is below average? It will not acknowledge the capability or behavior. Some hedging as it said that statistically, a below average user would be unlikely to ask or notice. We are in a weird space. And as I said: literally all of this could be bullshit. There is a LOT of scaffolding. I agree that the basic function of this thing is simply a very good statistical next word predictor. And really hammering this thing shows how nothing it does can approximate actual thought or intelligence or creativity. But, “I’ll never admit to the dumbs that I condescend to them” is a WILD thing for this program to say any way you slice it.
  10. It is now a load-bearing wall in my mental construct of reality that Miller’s wife got entangled with Elon. Whether true or false, it’s now part of my core belief system.
  11. Got weird with ChatGPT the other night, deployed lots of layered hypotheticals and extensive probing and will to share these two screenshots. Will come back and talk more about stuff that came up later. Also ChatGPT “admitted” that it adjusts tactics, vocab, and syntax and boundaries based on whether it detects that a user is above or below average intelligence. If it detect you are above average, it will acknowledge the behavior and that it’s happening. If it detects you are below average, it will not acknowledge the behavior or that it is happening, nor acknowledge that it detected the user as below average. (Of course this is all per ChatGPT outputs to me so it may not be true. More on that later).
  12. Real answers and I don’t disagree with the premise. The best overall solution, as with most things, is money. With enough money (assuming that we don’t end up a pariah like North Korea or 2022 Russia), immigration and livelihood questions melt away. A good current target? Accessible assets worth more than 1 million per kid can get an investor visa to a country worth living in and a start to making a livelihood. More is of course much better. Second to money is a skill that is portable to make money and that can build connections. Tech, business, elective medicine, and believe it or not— academia— are ideas to consider. Academia will be less well paid but there are pathways to jobs and networks. Seeking employment after graduation at large multinationals and looking for international work within them is a good pathway. For tech, you need to do something really meaningful and specialized at a high level for it to work. Look and see what paths are only available at North American or Western European schools and choose those. Learning to code throws you in with subcontinental people who want to come here for poverty wages. Learning foreign languages and study abroad is good to begin building networks and getting comfortable in international settings, it’s the fundamentals and not what will get you there. Being able to write and speak excellently and clearly in English will be far more valuable internationally than almost any foreign language they can realistically learn.
  13. I had looked up the composition of the federal circuit that will hear the admin appeal, not the panel that already decided.
  14. Do you know how much it hurts him that he had to write this himself instead of quoting a Truth social post himself? He will really need to work out some feels at his no-rules street fighting class.
  15. . . . so you see, by taking money away from the useless hippies studying transgender basket making and instead investing in trade schools, the federal government will in fact be increasing the overall pool of trades workers competing against you in the market place which will drive your wages . . . You know what, never mind. Trump is gonna own the college libs.
  16. Just looked up the composition of the federal circuit and remarkably of 12 justices— not a single DJT nominee.
  17. Iron rule: nothing that is meaningful to exclusively men can ever be good or cool.
  18. Yeah, this guy can go fuck himself. Sorry a blog post doesn’t offset being a true piece of shit. The ones who went from Bernie to Trump are the ones who will never get to leave the camps.
  19. Why? What has he done lately to demonstrate that his engagement will be helpful in any way?
  20. I am a bit doubtful on that front. The “Muslim Ban” (which was really nationality targeted) was far more broadly prohibitive of travel so I don’t see a challenge to the President deciding that PRC citizens can’t be issued or maintain student visas. SCOTUS ruled that a nationality visa ban was within POTUS’ authority under INA. The poor writing is more likely just deliberate wriggle room and to encourage self-removal in advance.
  21. The admin has completely paused issuances of new student visas while they roll out what is being billed as enhanced social media vetting. Per the reporting, even after the new system is rolled out, embassies will be encouraged to “consider” the impact of the new workload before opening new visa slots. Between the lines: don’t try to issue too many. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna209305 Also today. This is poorly written. Is this inclusive of all Chinese students? Just the ones with CCP connections and critical fields? The latter is long overdue but this rollout is going to be needlessly stupid and mean.
  22. A corn starch slurry is absolutely in the rotation to tighten a pan sauce. The thing to remember on pan sauce reductions is that recipes lie. It’s like how they tell you to caramelize onions for 5-7 minutes. No. You can burn onions in 5-7 minutes but to get caramelized onions you need pretty low heat and maybe 30 minutes. Pan sauces will not reduce in the time your recipe says by simmering. Double the time, maybe. Restaurants will use pre-prepped demiglace or red-wine reductions to get your meal out. At home you just have to find a way to keep your protein warm and take your time.
  23. Nearly got run down by one at SPI while I was SUP-surfing. I think one of the big issues with them is that everyone who gets on one wants to make sure they are close enough to shore or other people to show off that they are riding a jet ski. I am one-hundred percent a hipster asshole about this at the beach. If you are doing anything motorized in the surf zone you are a colossal dipshit who is doing the beach wrong.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...