177 karma · joined February 25, 2022
> no matter who you are and what your role is
that view is exactly what you are endorsing. You may not feel that way, but unfortunately, you don't have to explicitly feel it in those words to act exactly in accordance to that.
If your role is actively making life worse for thousands of others, that's their problem.
When you've been offered the privilege of an uncomplicated life in a complicated world, just grab it by the neck and take it, discard the complications as something for others to deal with!
"survive underwater" what a joke. Yes, there will be good engineers there who will be sad to see it go this way, but they choose to be there, get paid better than 99% of humanity for that.
As a non-white person, I'm far more worried about the danger and damage from openAI and Google, that is real and current. Elon sees us as inferior and isn't quiet about it like most of the rest of the powerful folks are, but "business is business" gets our families killed far more than some tweets do.
Every one of them is involved in actively involved in destroying non-white people's lives and livelihoods, people just seem to not pay attention unless they're really loud about it like Elon is.
However, it also seemed less eurocentric, mentioning non-Greek non-Roman side of origins of fields where relevant, when the corresponding Wikipedia article doesn't. Wikipedia is generally pretty bad at this, but I had expected "Grokipedia" to be worse, not better in this regard!
That is such a perfect representation of the level of public discourse around this, that I can only thank you for providing a sample. It's not even hard to learn about the Donetsk region's conflicts and the destruction there long before the invasion, but flooding the media and Internet with convenient narratives like "just the Russian desire to own Ukraine" has worked and continues to work very effectively on the general public (likely even more than the censorship does).
And all of this is quite orthogonal to the main fact here, which is that it makes very little sense to blame the population living under an authoritarian government and want them destroyed for that government's actions, and then turn around and give people in a democratic country a pass on their government's actions.
I agree with the sentiment of your second paragraph, but I wish that thought applied in general, and not just to some special case countries. Especially considering the widely differing levels of democratic power people have in these different countries.
The momentum from that kept things going for a while after the Soviet Union fell, but the inertia has been running out and anti-science sentiment has been raising to the surface in its full form again. The sad truth is that it will most likely be at least another decade to swing things around again, if it's possible at all.
Yeah, doesn't he know that you have to be blood-related to the President for that privilege?
> In the early 2010s, the CIA ran a fake vaccination program in Abbottabad, offering free Hepatitis B vaccines to children in an attempt to collect DNA evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the compound where he was suspected of residing. It is unclear how samples were to be collected or how they would lead to bin Laden, but when news of this scheme broke, it added proof to existing conspiracy theories about vaccinations. As a consequence, many local leaders began urging people not to vaccinate their kids, various districts banned vaccination teams, and the Taliban issued a fatwa against vaccination programs. To this day, local leaders rail against vaccines as Western spying programs.
- https://www.vox.com/first-person/22256595/vaccine-covid-paki...
How many? There's some news about it being recommended for use by BLM protesters, and about it being blocked in China, Iran, etc. Where is this info about it being used in "overthrowing dictatorial governments"?
Well, HN isn't censored in this regard (unless you believe their influence extends here too). What specific criticisms do you have against "the inner circle"? And what evidence can you show for them?
> It occurs to me that none of these organization naturally have a good mechanism for dealing with these things
Can there even be a good mechanism to deal with these things, when most often there isn't any evidence and it's a "he said she said" situation? That's a fundamental problem with these situations that's intrinsically hard to solve.
One reasonable course of action is to say "we'll see if evidence accumulates, and if there's multiple independent complaints then we'll assume it's true". Which is pretty much what they did here, and now they're facing flak for that, as being on the "ignoring the issue" side of the fence. Another is to say "zero tolerance, any complaint and you're out". And that has obvious problems of being weaponized, and would end up on the "too strict, knee jerk" side of things.
Men and women are both incredibly complex and varied, and organizations having to judges of characters and relationships with limited evidence is going to be inevitably fraught with peril.
OpenAI: Hold my beer while I get these people to artificially create one.
You can of course criticize whatever you want, have double standards, and call things "authoritarian regimes" with no idea what those actually look like. Doesn't make them so.
Gwynne was hired to make something out of nothing in an unproven space (no pun intended), having to build everything from the ground up (also no pun intended).
Framing is a fun exercise, you can do it a lot of ways.
There are still faux-experts shilling their brand on Twitter for sure, but recently it feels like there are a lot more authentic and casual chat that's easy to get into.
It may just be that Elon shaking things up and causing some people to move out destabilized existing cliques, thus making things more approachable to an outsider. But I for one am enjoying the current Twitter a lot more than the past one.
> pushed the chronological feed
It's funny how many people who did not even know they weren't using a chronological feed before, are now cussing him out for showing a "For You" page - when he just made it much more visible and easier to switch to the "Following" feed.
> Pick them carefully, don’t skimp, and make sure they have good support. Because when things go pear-shaped, you really want to be able to actually talk to someone to change your web server or e-mail DNS records (or even DNS servers) to somewhere else.
> Big registrars can’t afford any support costs since they prefer to squeeze the price down as far as possible, and therefore they prefer to simply lose or outright drop any customer in case of any and all problems. Conversely, small registrars may charge more, but have better (i.e. actually existing, and sometimes even dedicated and personal) support for when things go wrong, and have a vested interest in keeping you as a customer.
> A small registrar might also be so small as to know you personally, which will help monumentally against any social engineering attacks.
Eek!
Was my first response on reading it, but tbh on reflection, there isn't really anything in my ChatGPT conversations that I would mind a human reading, and I expect the same for Bard (as long as it's disconnected from my login, which this policy mentions they do). It just feels weird that your "conversation" could be intruded upon and inspected by third parties at any point in the future.
(They also mention that you can "pause saving Bard activity", but knowing Google, that probably results in you not being able to access any Bard history whatsoever, even if saved in the past.)
Much better to just have control over the popular platforms, have a revolving door between them and the government intelligence agencies, and do your communication control that way.