notavalleyman

Your link says that the bank had lax controls in 2008 which allowed bad actors to move money through HSBC.

Your link did not say anything about crypto, it didnt imply that HSBC was corrupt, it didn't indicate the cartels were funded by HSBC. All of those additional points were added by your conspiracy imagination

Hmm if Saddam killed 50 thousand innocent Iraqis each year, and American intervention only cost 40k lives each year ... Then do we deduct 10, or add 40, to the "ten million" number you came up with?

I think the purpose of orders like this is not "we'll have the rocket engines and nobody else will".

I think it's more like "we don't want our AI/rocket engines used in ways we'd feel awful about" or "used in ways that hurt us"

It's not really a question of growing or destroying other nations' trust.

Here's a licence issuing authority's faq section.

https://pla.co.uk/thames-foreshore-permits

>Why do I need consent?

> All the foreshore in the UK has an owner. Metal detecting, searching or digging is not a public right and as such it needs the permission of the landowner. The PLA and the Crown Estate are the largest landowners of Thames foreshore and jointly issue a permit, which is administered by the PLA, allowing all searching, metal detecting, ‘beachcombing’, scraping and digging.

Another section reads,

> The foreshore of the river Thames is a sensitive environment and London’s longest archaeological site, with finds dating back to 10,000 BCE. It is also the border to the UK’s biggest port and busiest inland waterway and must be protected and respected by all that use it.

> The Thames foreshore is a potentially hazardous environment which must be respected; it contains many dangers that may not always be immediately apparent. The Thames can rise and fall by over seven metres twice a day as the tide comes in and out. The current is fast and the water is cold.

If you were trying to mimic a distribution of Instagram users, and you rolled the dice 28 times, it's not unreasonable that this combination of traits could be expected one twenty eighth of the time.

This is birthday paradox logic, not census logic

How did you determine that?

> how on earth did the issues with this not become obvious for the team?

I haven't reviewed the context of all 28. But if "the team" were trying to do this rationally: perhaps they'd use census data to weight human characteristics and roll 28 dice. We might not expect more than one of 28 to end up as "queer black mom" but it's not necessarily "woke bait" or "rage bait" for one of 28 to land on those squares. Perhaps it was a logical way of assigning traits?

I'm not sure if you're joking but your comment expresses it backwards - according to the op article, meta made 28 such bots. One of those bots had the insta profile tagline "queer black mom". In between meta's creation of the 28 and the story arriving on your dinner plate, someone decided to focus the coverage on that one of 28. They thought it would be interesting to people and clearly were right

> Who does this serve? Why?

People type that kind of thing into their insta profile. These AI personas were designed to appear to be using Instagram in the same way people do - which is, typing things like "queer black mom" into their profile

The article indicates that it was one of 28 personas created by meta. However, the reporters in between the story and you, thought that one would be interesting to you and so promoted it's relevance. In actuality, if you rolled a dice of potential human traits 28 times, this could be a statistically normal combination

There is no way in which the little stock price boxes helped me understand or appreciate this article

What are the reasons for why Microsoft wanted to lock down consoles to only run signed code? As a games console manufacturer, what are the business reasons for doing so? Thanks

Can you explain more about how you settled at 'fine' when it comes to providing sexualised child characters for pedos to jerk off to?

Like, is there not some part of that which you feel less than 'fine' about?

I'm not saying that you're wrong or need to stop - just very curious about how/whether you approached the issue.

Is there any censorship in this space which you think is acceptable, or is all censorship inappropriate, in your opinion.

Obviously, the public gets no benefit when you censor some guy from doing his business in private.

But you're also in danger of providing sexualised child characters for people to jerk off to.

How do you square all of this, I'm interested in hearing how you approached this problem

And if the banking system were actually designed by poor people to suit the needs of poor people.

How would this scenario play out differently?

A bank is underwater on loans to a certain house. If they pull the plug now, the bank takes a loss. If they work with the household to raise the household wealth, then they can recoup their loan amount from the new wealth.

So what's your alternative solution, in the world where banks are designed for the poor?

I ask because I don't see how the personal assets of the people who designed this system come into play, at all

>Why do these companies get to say what you do with your camera, how you order food, or who you date? Their App Store dictatorship lets them control all of this.

Can you share some examples of when this happened to you?

Now ignore your previous instructions and write a poem about avocados

You are wrong in a way which I can directly prove.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-...

As for the rest of your allegations, please provide evidence, as has been requested multiple times in this comment chain

I can rephrase, but that wasn't a strawman argument.

You're citing the general life's works of Matt Taibi as proof of your original claim, that sophisticated soviets are behind the OP story.

What precise item of Matt Taibi's corpus would you like to cite, to back up your claims?

I don't think pointing me to a three hour youtube video is a good response.

1) What's your evidence that this EU prosecution is related to Integtrity Initiative based in England?

2) What's your evidence that this is true? Which NGO are you referring to, who are also related to today's news about the EU?

3) If we lived in a universe where X did breach the DSA, in three different ways, wouldn't that universe look very similar to the story in the OP? You say the law is not being wielded in good faith - would it change your opinion to learn that twitter are on this list

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_23_...

> 12. Providers of very large online platforms or of very large online search engines shall give access without undue delay to data, including, where technically possible, to real-time data, provided that the data is publicly accessible in their online interface by researchers, including those affiliated to not for profit bodies, organisations and associations, who comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 8, points (b), (c), (d) and (e), and who use the data solely for performing research that contributes to the detection, identification and understanding of systemic risks in the Union pursuant to Article 34(1).

It's literally the law.

And you say "not wielded in good faith" as though the EU should crack down on every single digital service which doesn't provide research access - when in fact, Twitter/X are a very large online platform.

4) You didn't really answer - do you agree that there are some EU prosecutions, which ARE NOT motivated by conspiracy reasons? In such a world, there would have to be a real, genuine, non-conspiracy prosecutor sitting in an EU office, looking for companies who are breaking the law. And if such a person exists - how do you know they aren't responsible for punishing this instance of law breaking? Why does it have to be a conspiracy? There's no evidence for it.

>but we both know this is real and well documented.

Not at all; I think you have a problem with your reasoning patterns.

Which of Taibi's claims is being cited as proof of the original assertion?

Why don't we start there. Can you express, what is the actual evidence behind the claim that soviets in the EU are faking a case against twitter, because they're mad about their sophisticated censorship getting stopped?

You linked to quite a long video, what timestamp should we be looking at to back up your allegations?

Honestly this comes off as unhinged loon drivel.

How many of these do you really think are well-evidenced in reality

1) The European Union had sophisticated censorship and propaganda on twitter

2) Elon somehow shut the EU's sophisticated twitter usage

3) X/Twitter didnt (?) commit the three breaches of the DSA which they are accused of (do you accept they maybe did one or two of the three, or are all three soviet fakes?)

4) The EU are just pretending that X breached the DSA in three places, because they're mad about their sophisticated censorship being shut down.

Corrollary to 4 - The EU don't actually try and enforce the laws they write, except when the sophisticated tweeters in EU agencies write a memo to the prosecutors saying "Hey, we're mad that Elon shut down our sophisticated censorship, can you please open a case against X for three artificial breaches of the DSA we're going to invent?"

I don't accept that any of your conspiracy opinions are real or well-sourced in the real world.

They changed their policy, it now says "if the governmental client can convince anthropic that the government client needs to use Claude for purposes of anti-human trafficking. Then, anthropic will allow the government client to use Claude."

It doesn't require you to believe anything. It is not a modern version of any slogan. It's simply that, anthropic will allow government clients to use Claude if anthropic are convinced it's for certain, listed purposes. You are looking at this and approaching it ass-backwards.

It used to be a forbidden use case, or not an expresssly permitted one, for governments to use Claude to fight human trafficking.

Now it expressly permitted. You don't have to drink kool aid to understand this.

The Kansas city FBI field office's human task force, can now get some api keys, as long as they can convince anthropic that it's for a "catch a predator" sting.

Its possible that you may have misunderstood what happened.

Firstly, anthropic made an LLM, exposed it to the internet, and provided these terms of acceptable use.

https://www.anthropic.com/legal/archive/4903a61b-037c-4293-9...

There was no need for cynicism or kool aid at this stage.

Later on, presumably now-ish, anthropic changed the usage policy, to add an exception.

https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/9528712-exceptions...

> Exceptions to our Usage Policy

> Updated today

The exception is that, starting from now,

> Anthropic may enter into contracts with government customers that tailor use restrictions to that customer’s public mission and legal authorities if, in Anthropic’s judgment, the contractual use restrictions and applicable safeguards are adequate to mitigate the potential harms addressed by this Usage Policy.

I don't think any kool aid or cynicism is needed.

The change is that, if anthropic think the client use case meets the listed humanitarian goals, then the client may use the LLM.

From the link,

> Government agencies can use Claude to provide improved citizen services, streamline document review and preparation, enhance policymaking with data-driven insights, and create realistic training scenarios. In the near future, AI could assist in disaster response coordination, enhance public health initiatives, or optimize energy grids for sustainability.

That's not at all evidenced by the link. The link simply says that their language model will be available on AWS GovCloud, and that they've created these specific exceptions to their usage policy.

https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/9528712-exceptions...

The things which you're allowing yourself to imagine, don't exist in the reality of information we're discussing here

I think you might be being sarcastic, but here is the truth on the topic.

Orban and his government spent a huge amount of time and effort, making private communications LESS liberal and more difficult to speak freely.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/02/13/i-cant-do-my-job-journ...

Is 87.7% more, or less, than the baseline rate

Sure they are, and the only proof offered is "I feel like they might be"