sweng @ sweng @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

206

Joined

2 yr. ago

There's no need to argue. We can just check what the Ukrainian position is. As Ukraine has been invaded by Russia at least 3 times within the last 150 years, it means no proof is needed (by your logic).

It's unclear to me what happens if two countries have been invaded 3 times, but tell different stories. Do we believe the one that has been invaded more in that case?

Ukraine fights Russia. "But what about US nuclear brinkmanship in completely different places?"

Would you BTW answer how many times one needs tp be invaded until one should be blindly trusted? I'm truly curious. You mentioned 3 times in 150 years. Is that more or less it?

Holy whataboutism indeed. In a war between Ukraine and Russia, we are supposed to blindly believe Russia, because the US is doing bad stuff with nukes in a differen part of the world?

BTW, after how many invasions does one get the "everyone must believe what I say" card? I mean, Ukraine has also been invaded a few times now.

Well, if the owner's word is enough as evidence on it's own, Russia has committed quite a bit of warcrimes in Ukraine. Will be interesting to see how they could possibly weasel out of a conviction considering the rock-solid "trust-me bro" evidence also provided by Ukraine.

Maybe one should not blindly trust the word of one of the warring parties?

"At a plant", or "near a plant"?

Also, why couldn't a drone strike be precursor to capturing and securing the plant? E.g. destroy guard posts in front of the plant in a controlled manner to reduce the risk of uncontrolled firefights during the capturing?

Whether it's a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.

It seems like a quite pointless discussion since you both seem to have already decided your minds.

They don't accept your sources? Why? If they really are valid and they just cherry-pick sources, then there is no way of convincing them.

On the other hand, you also just seem to dismiss their counterarguments without much thought. If they can give a counterargument for your every argument, then maybe your arguments actually aren't good?

Asiatic hordes? Aren't the majority of Russians european?

What about weapons not used for terrorist attacks?

Also, sonething tells me a hoard of russian soldiers will not turn aroud by throwing bread at them.

there is no way to do the equivalent of banning armor piercing rounds with an LLM or making sure a gun is detectable by metal detectors - because as I said it is non-deterministic. You can’t inject programmatic controls.

Of course you can. Why would you not, just because it is non-deterministic? Non-determinism does not mean complete randomness and lack of control, that is a common misconception.

Again, obviously you can't teach an LLM about morals, but you can reduce the likelyhood of producing immoral content in many ways. Of course it won't be perfect, and of course it may limit the usefulness in some cases, but that is the case also today in many situations that don't involve AI, e.g. some people complain they "can not talk about certain things without getting cancelled by overly eager SJWs". Society already acts as a morality filter. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Free-speech maximslists exist, but are a minority.

Well, I, and most lawmakers in the world, disagree with you then. Those restrictions certainly make e.g killing humans harder (generally considered an immoral activity) while not affecting e.g. hunting (generally considered a moral activity).

So what possible morality can you build into the gun to prevent immoral use?

You can't build morality into it, as I said. You can build functionality into it that makes immmoral use harder.

I can e.g.

• limit the rounds per minute that can be fired
• limit the type of ammunition that can be used
• make it easier to determine which weapon was used to fire a shot
• make it easier to detect the weapon before it is used
• etc. etc.

Society considers e.g hunting a moral use of weapons, while killing people usually isn't.

So banning ceramic, unmarked, silenced, full-automatic weapons firing armor-piercing bullets can certainly be an effective way of reducing the immoral use of a weapon.

While an LLM itself has no concept of morality, it's certainly possible to at least partially inject/enforce some morality when working with them, just like any other tool. Why wouldn't people expect that?

Consider guns: while they have no concept of morality, we still apply certain restrictions to them to make using them in an immoral way harder. Does it work perfectly? No. Should we abandon all rules and regulations because of that? Also no.

But isn't it obvious that if a presidential candidate promises some legislation, that it is contingent on the legislative branch?

Didn’t pursue codification into law in his first hundred days j

As (again) a non-american, doesn't that require both chambers to support the legislation?

I'm not even american, so I'm not sure what you arw on about right now. All I asked was how Roe v. Wade being repealed was Biden's fault, and the answer apparently is that he did not pack the court.

How genocide fits into Roe v. Wade, or how callling me names somehow helps I'm still unsure of.

Never let it be forgotten that Roe v. Wade was struck down during a Democrat administration

Ok, but what does that have to do with said denocrat administration? What say did they have in the matter? What could they have done to change the outcome?

Being in the government often leads to reduced popularity.

Consider the options:

1. No early election. RN popularity continues to rise, and they take the presidency and parliament in 2027. Result: Complete power for 5 years.
2. Early election. RN wins, and forms a new government. While being the ruling party, they lose in popularity and lose the elections in 2027. Result: limited power for 3 years.

To me it seems quite clear that option 2 is preferable to 1 for Macron.

Why should I provide more sources when you yourself haven’t provided any?

Firstly, if you go back to the beginning of this thread I exactly provide a source that contradicts the original article. So clearly I have provided sources.

Secondly, to paraphrase my mother, "Just because the person you are discussing with is being unproductive, does not mean you have to be". I am trying to understand you, so of course I will try to be productive about it and reach my goal, instead of just being difficult because you are.

You've tried explaining, but without providing any sources at all, except for "look it up yourself".

I'm truly not sure why you think I have memorized some talking points? Is it maybe because I don't want to move on to the next point until after we have properly dealt with the previous one, including e.g. figuring out what sources your claims sre based on (except just "source: The Internet" which is not even acceptible in grade school).

You provide information, but absolutely refuse to tell what source that information is based on.

Could you please provide sn example of where I have moved goal posts?