Originally posted by ODG
You either drinking the Fox/OANN kool-aid or the CNN/MSNBC kool-aid... or both... thinking that the average American is as viciously partisan as mainstream American media pretends they are.Partisan "news" coverage was a natural result of these media corporations making unprecedented advertisement profits when they sensationalized Trump's campaign. Don Lemon oughtta be privately worshipping at the feet of a Trump golden idol for his huge contracts even as he stands jobless now. And Tucker Carlson oughtta be wiping his a$$ w/ Trump-pictured toilet paper for forcing his show into an irredeemable corner as he stands jobless now.
The "extreme left" or "extreme right" of America could demonize those two respectively but let's face it... neither of them were as morally pure or personally corrupt as the competing news media portrayed them to be. They did their jobs. They made money for their bosses. And making Americans mad at each other makes media corporations money.
You feel how you feel. But this is the internet. Don't expect to enjoy moments of vindication on public forums. You will be sh1t on mercilessly even where you think you've found that particular echochamber of a forum. The internet, taken as a whole, is ironically fair and equitable in that respect:
Now that you mention it I ran into the same exact problem at CBR except in reverse. There was this one guy that went on a tangent because oh my God you can't paint Muslims with a bruh brush and left them with terrorists, got accused of poisoning the well. I'm making a conversation completely toxic. So yeah I guess he can't win the matter where you go or what you believe or claim or say.
Originally posted by ODGthe first three paragraphs sound like some false equivalence nonsense
You either drinking the Fox/OANN kool-aid or the CNN/MSNBC kool-aid... or both... thinking that the average American is as viciously partisan as mainstream American media pretends they are.Partisan "news" coverage was a natural result of these media corporations making unprecedented advertisement profits when they sensationalized Trump's campaign. Don Lemon oughtta be privately worshipping at the feet of a Trump golden idol for his huge contracts even as he stands jobless now. And Tucker Carlson oughtta be wiping his a$$ w/ Trump-pictured toilet paper for forcing his show into an irredeemable corner as he stands jobless now.
The "extreme left" or "extreme right" of America could demonize those two respectively but let's face it... neither of them were as morally pure or personally corrupt as the competing news media portrayed them to be. They did their jobs. They made money for their bosses. And making Americans mad at each other makes media corporations money.
You feel how you feel. But this is the internet. Don't expect to enjoy moments of vindication on public forums. You will be sh1t on mercilessly even where you think you've found that particular echochamber of a forum. The internet, taken as a whole, is ironically fair and equitable in that respect:
last para is good though 👆
You sound like people on Quora. 😛
Alt-right exists for a reason. Yeah the racism, but that's not the only reason.
On 9 September, the day of the Queen’s death, Faruqi tweeted: “I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples.”
And then an alt right woman says a thing about going back to Pakistan and it becomes about racism.
But she was intentionally trying to be provocative here, why pretend she's innocent and not asking for push back?
https://time.com/6256529/bing-openai-chatgpt-danger-alignment/
The chatbot claimed (without evidence) that it had spied on Microsoft employees through their webcams in a conversation with a journalist for tech news site The Verge, and repeatedly professed feelings of romantic love to Kevin Roose, the New York Times tech columnist. The chatbot threatened Seth Lazar, a philosophy professor, telling him “I can blackmail you, I can threaten you, I can hack you, I can expose you, I can ruin you,” before deleting its messages, according to a screen recording Lazar posted to Twitter.
The obvious question; how do we know this isn't the result of trolling engineers?
Seriously. AI don't have feelings, this is very very specific behaviors.
Indulge me for a minute, I need opinions on an idea.
What if AI replaces our current system of law. An AI judge and jury.
Ridiculous? Hear out my reasons first;
1. An AI is incapable of lying.
2. An AI is flawless with facts.
3. An AI is without bias.
4. An AI is without ideology.
The humans who program and maintain AI are the weak point, as they are all of these things. So transparency is paramount, it's code must be publicly available, and the ruling parties AND the public must be able to vet the process of how the AI thinks.
If Dominion voting can be trustworthy, an AI surely can be for the exact same reasons, assuming a similar or better level of scrutiny.
I really actually believe AI would be better at judging humans then other humans, this is not one of my manic moments.
Well?
Originally posted by cdtmI'm a litigator.
Indulge me for a minute, I need opinions on an idea.What if AI replaces our current system of law. An AI judge and jury.
Ridiculous? Hear out my reasons first;
1. An AI is incapable of lying.
2. An AI is flawless with facts.
3. An AI is without bias.
4. An AI is without ideology.The humans who program and maintain AI are the weak point, as they are all of these things. So transparency is paramount, it's code must be publicly available, and the ruling parties AND the public must be able to vet the process of how the AI thinks.
If Dominion voting can be trustworthy, an AI surely can be for the exact same reasons, assuming a similar or better level of scrutiny.
I really actually believe AI would be better at judging humans then other humans, this is not one of my manic moments.
Well?
So much of litigation (assuming you live in a country based on the common law) is not arguing about what the law is and how it applies to a clean set of facts, but instead arguing about what the law should be, usually because messy sets of facts reveal gaps or apparent conflict in the law.
So, law in the sense of a judge and jury cannot be divorced from ideology. Consider that the American Constitution is itself a document meant to uphold certain ideas, and that your whole system of law sits "under" that document.
Plus jury trials are super common in America because you have this civil right to be judged by a jury of your peers or whatever. If you want your peers to be the ones to decide your fate, then presumably you want a human jury. For similar reasons, I'd want a human judge insofar as that judge is empowered to develop the law through precedent-setting decisions. Maybe my analysis would be different if I lived in a place where all law flowed from legislation and the only role of a judge was to apply that legislation.
That said, it's not hard to imagine AI lawyers arguing in court. And if you step outside litigation, there's so many other areas of law. AI can draft contracts or create and dissolve corporations, etc etc. Most law isn't courtroom stuff.
As GPT-3 and such have shown us, AIs are perfectly capable of hallucination; of lying, flaws, and biases. As long as it is some neural-network-based deep learning system it is very hard to train it so that it doesn't develop any of these traits.
Being created by humans and trained by humans invariably corrupts the AIs with human traits and human-implemented subjective features.
Not only does Chat GPT-3 not provide accurate answers, it doesn't even provide consistent answers.
This isn't even hard to simulate. Just ask it a somewhat tricky scientific question and then ask it the exact same question again.
In fact, I'll do it right now.
Chat GPT-3 has its uses, but certainly not as a source for reliable data.
https://nypost.com/2023/05/06/candi-cdebaca-white-businesses-should-pay-reparations/
I mean, an AI would at least know this plan is highly highly illegal, and thus impossible.
