I feel like this actually highlights an undocumented feature of AI that institutions are taking advantage of: the ability to go "The AI fucked up. It happens. What're you gonna do?" I don't see anyone being held responsible and I don't see any plan to prevent this in the future.
>[The GrapheneOS project] also said it has not received any kind of request for assistance from a Canadian police force in recent months.
We saw this in the US with apple (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...). They want the big win of forcing all encryption to have a law enforcement backdoor built in, so any time they run into encryption that hampers a legitimate investigation their first response is to throw up their hands and go "The only way we can keep you safe is if you give up this bit of your freedom." Then that effort either succeeds or fails, and then an earnest effort to decrypt this particular phone begins.
i'm not looking at the guesses, i'm looking at the distribution of guesser success rates. assuming random distribution, counterintuitively enough, you would expect some guessers to appear much better or much worse than others. i know i'm not the first person to think of this, so i'm asking what's been done to mitigate it because i can't find anything. if you expect x% of guesses to be within two std devs of the mean that means you can expect 100-x% to be outside that, even without any guessers actually being better at guessing than any of the others.
as the kind of person who has been reading the jargon file for fun since the 90s, I thought I had at least a passing familiarity with a lot of hackish slang from the old days. today i learned about nasal demons as a phrase for undefined behavior. i supposed there's still fossils in the dirt
the crux of whether or not this is extortion isn't just "something I don't like happens". it's not extortion to dislike a business's practice, and it's not extortion to tell your friends about it. it may be distasteful, maybe even shitty (in fact I'd go so far as to say that even while I agree with the idea I really don't like how they did it) but to criminalize what this person said is to criminalize the idea of not doing business with someone because you don't like their actions and is an attack on free speech.
If 10,000 people guess 10,000 fair coin flips each one of them will get more guesses right than any of the others, one of them will get fewer guesses right than any of the others, and the gulf between the two is likely to be over 4 standard deviations wide. I'm certain that I, being an untutored schmuck from Pittsburgh and having thought of this almost immediately after reading about this contest, cannot be the first person to realize this is a potential problem for a forecasting contest. But I can't find anything they've done to mitigate that problem. Can anyone clue me in?
protection rackets involve crime and violence. talking to people about a business doing things you don't like is neither of those things. that's just coopting actual victimhood in an effort to make people disapproving of how you do business a crime.
Hey, so what do y'all think it felt like back in the 30s to watch the world split between a handful of really aggressive countries and everyone else? Specifically, what do y'all think it felt like to be a non-aggressive person living in one of the handful of really aggressive countries?
but the only way they can "fuck up" this business is by influencing their reputation. no one is getting a brick through their window. this is an attempt to try to mutate basic feedback mechanisms until they're equivalent to physical violence and turn "I won't shop here and neither will my friends" into "literally extortion".
I would once again like to point out that the "threat" mentioned in the article is someone saying they'll talk about what the shop owner did with their friends.
if i'm expected to make coffee and art then it's perfectly reasonable to expect more money than if I'm merely expected to make coffee. whether that comes as part of base salary or as some contract-esque arrangement when art is required of me is the kind of detail we can figure out (or you can try to do it with AI and have a lot of people stop supporting you. your call.)
the only "threat" mentioned in the article is that someone said that if she didn't take the sign down they would post about it in a local artist community. Threatening people with violence is always unwarranted, but trying to portray talking with other people about what someone is doing as a "threat" is disingenuous.
no one is challenging whether "fuck" is offensive, we're challenging what powers the mild abrasiveness of a single word actually gives people in controlling behavior.
This brought to you by the same legal scholars that brought you theories such as "Everyone knows 'own' doesn't mean 'own'" and "It's okay to give the judge hearing your case tons of money because that's just gifts between friends as long as you don't explicitly say it's a bribe". Our legal system seems to be based around deciding on the outcome you want regardless of rationality or the law, talking nonsense long enough that it seems like there's intractable disagreement and then declaring your solution to be the common-sense middle ground.
but do you have any evidence beyond intuition that those denials differ significantly in reversal rate? one would guess that things that are never going to be covered get denied and then never appealed but one would also guess that things that are never going to be covered don't get submitted in the first place. assuming that the rate of legitimate denials is higher among those claims never appealed, what rate of illegitimate denials is acceptable? why would denying even one person care that they're contractually entitled to receive be okay? why shouldn't insurance companies have to do what they promise to do and accept money for?
>Few patients appeal when insurers decline to pay for their care. Many don’t even know they can. But new data show that when they do, they frequently win — in some plans, nine out of 10 times.
If 90% of denials that are challenged end up being reversed, and the delay in delivering the care that the insurer contractually agreed to deliver is deleterious to the patient's overall health and leads to prolonged suffering, why is this not a cause of action? Until there is some sort of downside introduced, the "deny til they die" health insurance model is going to continue to thrive at the expense of people not getting the care they paid for and are entitled to.
fair, but recipes aren't the only thing where AI summaries at the top of search results are simultaneously transformative and competitive. Any information that is scraped from a website and then summarized by AI in a way that prevents that website from getting views is both transformative and competitive.
How clear is it when I google a recipe and get an AI-generated recipe that's clearly derived from the top three results and then placed above those results? That sounds like it's both transformative (in that the recipe created by the AI may not match any one of the scraped recipes perfectly) and also competitive (in that the AI takes page views away from the pages it got the recipes from)
>Which is, of course, a bad thing that ought not to be encouraged
I'm not actually willing to take that as read. It's just the word "fuck". You may personally find it distasteful and you're welcome to discourage your children from using it but it seems like you're committing Pargin's Blunder here (mistaking norms specific to your social group for universal truths).
oh like this article that says a child was hit by a "LAPD bullet" as though wild bullets roam the streets of LA looking for children instead of being fired from a gun by a person who made a decision.