DisjointedHunt

Does the bill literally say a news outlet needs to rely on “clicks from Facebook for money” to qualify?

Come on, you’re probably smarter than this and can present a better argument than needing to stoop to a straw man.

You might say that, but multiple political organizations through internal polling have found these independent journalists to have such a large audience that they get candidates to appear on them.

There are plenty of publicly available data points that present a reasonable case for this that im too lazy to cite on a friday evening, but there are a few in this reddit post that may help: https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ben0rp/is_joe_big...

This whole thing is a way to enrich corporate media and disenfranchise independent journalism.

Joe Rogan or The Young Turks won't be eligible for any of these anti trust exclusions or subsequent payouts. Even though much of America relies on them for political coverage, news and debate.

This whole things is a blatant money and power grab and has nothing to do with increasing the quality of independent, high quality Journalism.

Lol, i love the discourse on HN /s

And you suppose Journalistic pieces aren't produced in similar abundance right now? We are in an era where anyone can spin up a podcast/video channel/website etc. The SINGLE LARGEST TRUSTED NEWS SOURCE IN AMERICA according to many political investigative entities is JOE ROGAN.

And that's a great tangent. Would Joe Rogan be eligible for these payouts if he publishes snippets outside his Spotify deal and it shows up on Facebook ? OF COURSE HE WONT. That's the point of the bill . . .to suppress independent journalists and enrich the establishment.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Why does the bill single out "Journalism" as the sole type of content that requires an anti trust exception to take on distributed publishing in the online world?

Why not help the music industry, the pornography industry and scores of other types of content that are pilfered everyday in the name of the section 230 protections that these platforms enjoy?

The answer, if i may offer an opinion, is to indirectly impose an illegal tax on a profitable business model to serve as a "forever fund" into the hands of businesses that support a certain political viewpoint.

The mainstream media does not represent honest journalists and this collective bargaining contract will only empower the mass-media behemoths to continue pushing groupthink while independent, small journalists who dare report on stories such as sex scandals involving politicians (or their sons hacked computers with videos containing drugs and prostitutes) will get cut out of the collective contract.

I hope that's not the outtake you got from my comment.

The phrase "Trust me, bro" is not meant to indicate the press or any entity is above fact and evidence based reporting.

If this was a story in the New York Times, it would be in the opinion section. There is an expectation in intellectual reporting to have a factual basis to draw a conclusion upon.

I'm annoyed that the blog linked here simply starts off with such a broad, presumptive take citing nothing but the opinions of some stranger on the internet and starts to make such strong conclusions.

I would say the same thing if this was reported in the "Establishment press" or anywhere else. As should anyone reading this.

Being critical of non factual reporting should be encouraged regardless of where the story is published.

There's no argument for "running on the opposite direction". The OP piece doesn't meet any reasonable standard to be considered an intellectual submission and hence the terse response.

Highly speculative opinion not grounded in fact and blatantly pushing a conclusion . . . what else can you say? Why is this even submitted to HN? A conversation starter?

Source: "Trust me, bro"

Let's break this down. . .the most significant contributor to inflation over the past year has been fuel prices and availability. This leads to reverberations through the economy, such as:

- Increased freight and transport costs, everything that moves from source to destination becomes expensive.

- Most importantly, food and raw material powering all the products we buy as daily expenditures have a significant fuel cost.

The Fed has only one weapon, the flow of funds into the economy. It controls this through the Fed rate as well as instruments under its gambit which give it immense power to purchase assets.

In short, this is not the job of the fed. We have a molecules crisis thanks to war and supply chain issues combined with stupid energy security decisions.

It’s a state funeral.

You’ll get arrested for doing the same thing in the United States at state funerals there.

It's not even "Nightlife". It's weird, any sort of social gatherings past 9pm just didn't seem to exist (Except for the creamery/diner, some pockets of isolated restaurants). I would expect a college town to have some life, kids out and about after a late game etc. . .not the case, and i was there for a while.

It almost felt . . . suppressed.

You walk under the tunnel or through the Sheraton parking lot and across the stanford shuttle stop . . . compare that to say, downtown Austin or Houston and you see what i mean. After 9pm, those streets are desolate with the sole diner/creamery showing signs of life.

I travel internationally for work and when my return trips land in SFO occasionally, it feels like i've travelled back in time to an alternate timeline where the US lost the war or something.

Ah i remember basically living out of the Sheraton in downtown Palo Alto for the better part of a year thanks to not accepting a permanent move to the bay area. It all seemed so weird at the time.

The sense i got of the place was one who's grandeur had passed. The furniture and the houses there seemed so dated, walking around the neighborhoods exposed all the cracked concrete on the sidewalks and the graffitis under the tunnel leading up University.

Take a short walk and you're in the great lawn at Stanford, such a shame how a beautiful city like that is not treated as it should be. I had far better experiences of public infrastructure during trips to poorer countries. The airport felt ignored, the caltrains felt dated and inefficient on the inside, i don't know. . . it just felt like everyone was waiting for a nuke to level the place and rebuild better than making it better right now.

I respect your response.

I think, on the last sentence, we merely disagree if the original statement meant it's "Not a good strategy" or "Not possible because it can be gamed"

You have the right to not shower for days and make a fool of yourself. It is considered indecent to do so.

Similarly, using a funeral service, public or not, to push your agenda is considered indecent. You have the right, yes, surely, but have some respect.

Some of my best memories are riding a bike around the environment with the radio on be it in San Andreas or in V, the gameplay and immersion are great for a real life simulation of no rules riding.

Image models ship with a discerning model to flag NSFW pixels. Similar approaches can work here as a band aid while the next generation of models incorporate misdirection and trolling into their training pipelines.

The paragraph immediately after the one you quoted should give you context. We're not debating if its amazing or not, that's a statement to dispute the assertion in your title that you know for certain that the solution doesn't lie in this framework even though you don't know what a solution likely is.

It is sensationalist and very easily shown to be not well thought out.

The present suite of models is not optimized to detect or deal with misdirection. It is a transparent presentation of weights learned through massive chunks of data and future iterations are likely going to bake those assumptions of misdirection into their training runs.

You highlighted potential solutions yourself. At its very core, the problem is one of either sanitizing inputs or outputs. How does one do this? Image models come pre packaged with a discerning model that flags NSFW pixels, there is no reason why a generic "Is this NSFW or threatening" text model optimized for this use case will not work to serve the same purpose. By ruling out the approach with an assumed, simplistic take that "Ai can be gamed, so NO", you're really splitting hairs and trying not to find a solution to provide a sensationalistic take.

Jesus, this is a silly take.

Lets phrase the problem appropriately, this isn't new. Every new technology will be used for good or bad and not a day goes by before someone tries to deceive another entity, be it another human being in a car dealership price negotiation or a prompt to a text model.

The reason models like GPT3 are so remarkable is that they learn a statistical relationship between incredibly vast amounts of unstructured data to mimic the semblance of intellect or reasoning.

The FRAMEWORK that underpins GPT3 and most modern "AI" is a remarkable acceleration of the compute and inference resources that, when associated with large clumps of data, start unlocking immense value.

To have such a strong assertion saying "I don't know how to solve this, but hey, i KNOW FOR A FACT it isn't more of this advanced compute paradigm that has been the topic of many a success in the computer science discipline" is a tabloid like take.

You are going to get angry reactions like mine, but reactions nonetheless, thus driving more views to your headline and cycling it through the system. Smart people will take a stand, and others, to be controversial or looking from a contrarian POV will extend the conversation leading to a useless cycle of a waste of time.

All we're seeing through these "Prompt injection" attacks is how loose the parameters for influence right now are, allowing for an open ended interaction with no boundaries with the statistical output of the model.

Is this solvable? Certainly. Can we absolutely rule out "More AI" to solve it? Fuck no.

Eh? What part of the word "Subjectivity" do you not understand?

Before dragging your ass into making another silly point thats not being debated here, could you please read the thread and understand the law that Google apparently violated here and what part of the court ruling is black or white and not subjectively parsed to the point of hilarity ?

And once you're done with that, go educate yourself on what the difference between a democracy and reality is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_...

You know, if you were a little more educated on the hypocrisy of European Royalty, you could make better arguments.

Margrethe Vestager and others like her enable a massive espionage operation on Europeans with the help of the US and other governments when it suits them: https://www.politico.eu/article/margrethe-vestager-unsolved-...

The very same thing that the CJEU is blocking cross Atlantic data transfers based on their most recent ruling ie, the imability of foreign entities to challenge FISA courts, is explicitly carved out as an exception for European Governments in the GDPR.

Instead of looking for a reason to excuse this now, please have the decency to admit the double standard.

You think we're arguing about the dollar amount or about the lack of legal grounds ?

I'm not AngloAmerican, you prejudicial, Racist fuck

If we're really going down this rabbit hole, look up what reserve currencies held by large entities such as private or central banks are and what the SDR set by the IMF is.

The parent comment was a joke it it wasn't clear. A call for malicious compliance given the abject subjectivity of the ruling here. It also illustrates how the pettiness displayed by European entities acting hostile towards western tech companies while ignoring alarming abuses by Chinese companies is silly and dangerous.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and all that, extend this petty exchange that the rulers of the EU at present seem hell bent on, and we lose so much as a society for negative gain.

So . . deliberately concealing poisonous gas emissions on a scale so massive, it affected every living thing in the United States is a little different to a highly subjective interpretation of a dominant market position and an even more suspect ruling on abuse of said monopoly.

What if viral and parasitic reproduction is different and produces a "Clone" instead of an "Offspring" ? That would explain so much about how these things seem to work as one.

Either that or there HAS to be a form of distributed communication technique here that we haven't yet discovered.

I find the cover up worse than the counterfeits.

We have a family who lost a bright young man who volunteered to serve his country and lay his life down to protect the ones he loved. And what did the Air Force brass do? Everything they could to deny him an honorable send off.

They pinned the blame squarely on the soldier who died . This would be low for even the communists. I hope they rot in prison and the Feres doctrine is amended to allow suits for malice like we see here.

Have you read the judgement? ROFL

They justify the verdict on abusive monopolies through a maze of findings that involve the actual letter of the law not being flouted but agreeing with the commissions convoluted approach of discretionary parsing of the devices sold in a 10 year period and associated success or failure of other competitors that Google has zero control over and which may have been caused by a billion other factors.

Must be fun defending a judgement you haven't read with the exact reason the comment you responded to is pissed at highlighted so nicely in your third paragraph.

If you're really reading this comment as a serious proposal, then, fuck it . . Special pennies. Minted on grains of zinc. Limited issue, full legal tender.

I look forward to your support of US fines on the German automobile industry and Airbus as well.

Any half wit judge should be able to bless those judgements if we’re using the standard in the court ruling we’re commenting on.

It’s a almost as though you think the issue here is about some actual abuse as opposed to the logical loops the judgement is diving through to push through those findings.