Isn't this still subject to the same problem, where a system can lie about its inference chain by returning a plausible chain which wasn't the actual chain used for the conclusion? (I'm thinking from the perspective of a consumer sending an API request, not the service provider directly accessing the model.)
Also:
Any time I see a highly technical post talking about AI and/or crypto, I imagine a skilled accountant living in the middle of mob territory. They may not be directly involved in any scams themselves, but they gotta know that their neighbors are crooked and a lot of their customers are gonna use their services in nefarious ways.
So, I used to be a huge fan of this podcast, The Pessimists Archive, which catalogued all the times when people freaked out over stuff that seems silly today.
But the thing is: We’ve also failed to freak out sufficiently over some pretty important stuff, and people who were mocked at the time have later been proven to be right.
And then there’s also the paradox of risk management: Taking a risk seriously and working to mitigate it often makes the risk not materialize, making it look like the risk mitigation was a wasted effort.
All that is to say: You really should take each case on its own merits.
Is there an idiom for a stopped clock being "half-right"?
Where they're right: USAID definitely has some creepy effects on foreign countries, enabling economic leverage, propaganda, intelligence gathering, and even covert operations.
Where they're wrong: But the programs are only welcome in their destinations because they actually do something valuable for their country, and they're only funded on our end because they yield a net benefit for us.
Like, a few million dollars to keep infectious diseases under control worldwide is a good deal compared to the cost of letting diseases propagate overseas, stalling out trade and eventually making it to us.
And they're right about: The US contributes far and away the most towards these programs, vs. other developed nations. On the surface, that seems unfair.
But it's more complicated cuz: This is kinda part of the gig when it comes to owning the global reserve currency. You're gonna suffer more of the damage from an unstable world, so you have an incentive to spend more to stabilize the world. And you want a big portion of every nation's economy to transact in dollars, so you need to make sure they have some dollars flowing into their economy.
Edit: It's worth asking whether the US really still benefits from being the reserve currency. But, by god, that would be a sensitive transition process that I would not want this admin to tackle.
I think the plan is simply to fill it up ASAP so they can start “temporarily” holding deportees in domestic prisons and using them for cheap labor. It doesn’t even need to stay full, it just needs to incite a “change of plans”.
Reflecting on my previous experience with Reddit, Lemmy passes this test with flying colors.
On Reddit, I felt like I was gasping for air while being trampled by an army of trolls and dodging endless sponsored/astroturfed content. Lemmy feels like everyone is genuine. We might not all agree on the details, but I feel like we share 99% of the same basic moral framework and we're trying to be good.
I do worry that it's just because of its niche status and the barriers to entry. If Lemmy really pops off, it might be like the September that never ended.
…Vance said that the courts would inevitably “stop” Trump from trying to fire so many employees. When they do, Vance went on, Trump should “stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”
“We’re even looking at Treasuries,” the Republican said. “There could be a problem — you’ve been reading about that, with Treasuries and that could be an interesting problem.”
For some reason, the president went on to add, “It could be that a lot of those things don’t count. In other words, that some of that stuff that we’re finding is very fraudulent, therefore maybe we have less debt than we thought.”
His comments were, for all intents and purposes, gibberish. But more importantly, they were also potentially dangerous.
“For those not familiar with how financial markets work, US Treasuries are the ultimate safe asset, used as collateral for everything,” economist Paul Krugman explained. “Even a hint that some Treasuries might not be honored could bring everything to a screeching halt.”
Isn't this still subject to the same problem, where a system can lie about its inference chain by returning a plausible chain which wasn't the actual chain used for the conclusion? (I'm thinking from the perspective of a consumer sending an API request, not the service provider directly accessing the model.)
Also:
Any time I see a highly technical post talking about AI and/or crypto, I imagine a skilled accountant living in the middle of mob territory. They may not be directly involved in any scams themselves, but they gotta know that their neighbors are crooked and a lot of their customers are gonna use their services in nefarious ways.