xor @ xor @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

0

Comments

530

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not blocked because of the "Trump" bit though, right? It's because it's not a manifest V3 extension

Find hot Nicoles in your local Fediverse!

Well yeah, there was a deal on nuclear disarmament until Trump tore it up. Not surprising they're not interested in going through all that again just so he can back out of it for a second time as soon as he wants to look tough.

In the British monarchy, the monarch ("the Crown") and the person who is the current monarch are considered distinct "people" with their own separate possessions (i.e. King Charles as the Crown owns property separately to Charles Windsor the private citizen).

So these oaths are meant to be pledging loyalty to the Crown, in its role as the embodiment of the British state, as opposed to the king personally.

The commons library is a treasure trove of information about the UK's fascinating and complex constitution, I'd strongly recommend giving it a read if you're interested in this sort of stuff!

Commons Library: the Crown and the constitution

In particular, I'd recommend checking out The United Kingdom constitution – a mapping exercise, which is a document intended to be a reasonably thorough summary of the UK's constitution and where it comes from. It's ~300 pages so I wouldn't recommend reading the whole thing, but it's great as a reference for the parts you find interesting.

(and reinforces it)

Jesus Christ man. All I said was "it's possible there will be some form of peace treaty someday" and you're acting like I shat in your cereal.

Stop being an arse.

Edit: and don't call people mate before ranting at them. I'm not your friend.

Well that's 20th century Europe for you

66% of wars end in some form of compromise (source), and it's highly unlikely there's a scenario where Ukraine causes the total collapse of the Russian government, or that the fighting just naturally dies down.

It's all well and good to say "no peace with the bad guys" but that's a position you're taking because you don't want to negotiate with Russia, not because doing so necessarily achieves the best outcome for Ukraine. "They're mean so I won't do any form of diplomacy" is, frankly, dogshit statecraft.

If you want to actually understand how wars do, and specifically the Ukraine war could actually end, I strongly recommend reading that CSIS report I referenced.

Well because every war ends with a peace treaty. Ignoring that fact now and making it harder to do so in the future just because a peace treaty isn't viable now.

All I'm arguing for is making decisions while aware of all the factors? I don't understand what you're disagreeing with, really

Well yes, I am aware that Russia has violated numerous treaties. But I'm not arguing for the treaties to be the same, not even for a peace treaty to happen now. Nor am I saying we shouldn't give some portion of that money to Ukraine.

Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?

I feel like I'm being pretty clear that I don't think anything close to this, no? But your questions seem to be on the basis that I do.

The point I am actually making is that at some point in the future there will be some form of peace negotiations to end the war. That's not coming from a Trump-esque "peace now because I say so" angle, but from a "every conflict ends in some form of settlement eventually" angle. The fact that this money would act as significant leverage in that scenario means that this isn't just magic free money, but a tradeoff to be made.

That doesn't mean it's the wrong tradeoff, necessarily, just that to actually decide whether or not that's the case, you do need to consider that it is one.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, are you arguing that we should aim to keep the war going indefinitely? Because the only way a war ends without a negotiated settlement is with the total dissolution of one of the sides in the war. I don't see Ukraine fully annexing Russia any time soon, frankly.

The war does need to end sometime, even if that time isn't now, and creating a peace treaty that's self-enforcing is the only way that works. If using that money as leverage (e.g. the funds are gradually unlocked as the treaty phases progress) makes a lasting peace viable that otherwise wouldn't be, then it's an option worth considering.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the wrong choice to give the money to Ukraine, just pointing out that there is a tradeoff to be made.

I think their point is that at some point there will have to be some form of peace negotiations

If you get less value from using the money for weapons than for using it as leverage in negotiations, then it's a bad trade-off

Make the mafia great again

The whole what? As in you think each Wikipedia article should start by describing every sound in the word?

Skeuomorph (sk like skin, eu like you, m like mat, o like orphan, ph like off)

No, only in so far as the button to use it existing passively

No

And no

This is a different scenario, though. The Hannibal directive is specifically targeting YOU, not the vehicle.

So your scenario should be more like:

You have armed militants who take you hostage, putting you in the front seat of the van

Would you rather they:

• do nothing now, and try to rescue you when safely possible
• shoot you in the head

I'm not necessarily saying they're conflicting goals, merely that they're not the same goal.

The incentive for the generator becomes "generate propaganda that doesn't have the language chatacteristics of typical LLMs", so the incentive is split between those goals. As a simplified example, if the additional incentive were "include the word bamboo in every response", I think we would both agree that it would do a worse job at its original goal, since the constraint means that outputs that would have been optimal previously are now considered poor responses.

Meanwhile, the detector network has a far simpler task - given some input string, give back a value representing the confidence it was output by a system rather than a person.

I think it's also worth considering that LLMs don't "think" in the same way people do - where people construct an abstract thought, then find the best combinations of words to express that thought, an LLM generates words that are likely to follow the preceding ones (including prompts). This does leave some space for detecting these different approaches better than at random, even though it's impossible to do so reliably.

But I guess really the important thing is that people running these bots don't really care if it's possible to find that the content is likely generated, just so long as it's not so obvious that the content gets removed. This means they're not really incentivised to spend money training models to avoid detection.

Sure, but then the generator AI is no longer optimised to generate whatever you wanted initially, but to generate text that fools the detector network, thus making the original generator worse at its intended job.

That's a very silly take