Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization, which just executed a bunch of civilians on a music fest. There is no grey area and no room for interpretation.
Good! Saying "I will not condemn Palestinian resistance" at this specific time is a quite literal endorsement of Hamas. It's the only "resistance" and it is 100% based on slaughter of innocents (both Israeli and Palestinians).
A really horrible stance to take, with the very much expected consequences.
Hamas people literally shot-up a music fest, murdering a whole lot of civilians, kidnaping even more. Where would you draw the line before calling them terrorists?
I’ve been reading on an iPad mini for years, dark mode, and I have no complaints, never had any sleeping issues. For me the e-ink reader really shines at the beach, irreplaceable there.
Cory Doctorow gave a talk about the concept of "ensh*ttification" - how internet platforms start out good, then abuse users to benefit businesses, then abuse businesses to benefit themselves, until they die.
He argues today's big tech firms like Facebook and Google have undergone ensh*ttification, withdrawing value from users and business partners to benefit shareholders.
Doctorow says ensh*ttification happens due to lack of competition, companies' ability to "twiddle the knobs" with no transparency, and laws that criminalize modifying platforms.
He proposes halting consolidation, limiting companies' twiddling abilities, and restoring the right to modify platforms through "adversarial interoperability."
This will help shift control of technology from giant companies to small ones, co-ops, nonprofits and user communities.
Tactics include blocking mergers, mandating open APIs, government procurement rules favoring interoperability, and rolling back laws against modifying platforms.
The goal is a "new good internet" that succeeds the old open internet and avoids the pitfalls of today's walled gardens. Doctorow urges spreading these ideas to seize opportunities in future crises.
Looks like the findings are specifically about out-of-context learning, i.e. fine-tuning on facts like "Tom Cruise's mother was Mary Lee Pfeiffer" is not enough to be able to answer a questions like "Who are the children of Mary Lee Pfeiffer?", without any prompt engineering/tuning.
However, if you have in the context something like "Who was Tom Cruise's mother?", then the LLM has no problem answering correctly "Who are the children of Mary Lee Pfeiffer?", listing all the children, including Tom Cruise.
Note that it would be confusing even to a human to ask "Who is the son of Mary Lee Pfeiffer?", which is what they test on, since the lady had more than one son. That was the point of my comment, it's just a misleading question.
But that's not the issue in general that the researchers have unearthed, as I assumed based on the "A is B" summary, so yeah, it's just a poor choice of wording.
That's a logical fallacy. Given A is B it does not follow that B is A.
edit: it would make sense if it was phrased as "A is equivalent to B". Saying "A is B" in a scientific context has a very specific meaning. Makes me wonder how trustworthy the paper itself is.
kfet @ kfet @lemmy.ca Posts 6Comments 43Joined 2 yr. ago
love it so far! not finished yet, but it is a lot of fun