Similar but not quite as bad, Watson and Crick who did the analysis that figured out the structure got the Nobel, but Rosalind Franklin who did the xray diffraction that got them the data that allowed them to figure out the double helix structure got left out.
Still pretty bad, but not as bad as giving the prize to someone who did no work for it and actively argued against Bell’s conclusions.
Obviously its important, but pretending its not political doesnt make any sense. If a community doesnt want to discuss politics (and as far as I’ve seen the OP didnt say which community this was in) then its a reasonable post to remove.
It does not, unless you run weights that someone else has modified to remove the baked in censorship. If you run the unmodified weights released by deepseek it will refuse to answer most things that the CCP dont like being discussed.
Of course its political, what else would it be? You are talking about peoples rights (a political concept) being breached by an administration (poltical) using an arm of the government (political) as a paramilitary force (political).
Perhaps, I think its more likely that active moderation is the cause of that rather than word lists that let p!ss, pi$s and pιss through when trying to block piss.
The Scunthorpe problem is hard, and any simple blacklist method is bound to give both false positives and false negatives.
Not the parent, but LLMs dont solve anything, they allow more work with less effort expended in some spaces. Just as horse drawn plough didnt solve any problem that couldnt be solved by people tilling the earth by hand.
As an example my partner is an academic, the first step on working on a project is often doing a literature search of existing publications. This can be a long process and even more so if you are moving outside of your typical field into something adjacent (you have to learn what excatly you are looking for). I tried setting up a local hosted LLM powered research tool that you can ask it a question and it goes away, searches arxiv for relevant papers, refines its search query based on the abstracts it got back and iterates. At the end you get summaries of what it thinks is the current SotA for the asked question along with a list of links to papers that it thinks are relevant.
Its not perfect as you’d expect but it turns a minute typing out a well thought question into hours worth of head start into getting into the research surrounding your question (and does it all without sending any data to OpenAI et al). That getting you over the initial hump of not knowing exactly where to start is where I see a lot of the value of LLMs.
Yeah, fair enough, I was refering to posts and comments not other metadata because that isnt publicly available just as a get request (as far as I’m aware)
Everything on the Fediverse is almost certainly scraped, and will be repeatedly. You cant “protect” content that is freely available on a public website.
So if I modify an LLM to have true randomness embedded within it (e.g. using a true random number generator based on radioactive decay ) does that then have free will?
If viruses have free will when they are machines made out of rna which just inject code into other cells to make copies of themselves then the concept is meaningless (and also applies to computer programs far simpler than llms).
So where does it end? Slugs, mites, krill, bacteria, viruses? How do you draw a line that says free will this side of the line, just mechanics and random chance this side of the line?
I just dont find it a particularly useful concept.
When the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.” Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.
The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (which is the name preferred by the United States since it opted to de-recognize the ROC). Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter. When China attempted to change the Chinese text from the original acknowledge to recognize, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a Senate hearing questioner, “[W]e regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” In the August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”
To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Thus, the United States maintains formal relations with the PRC and has unofficial relations with Taiwan. The “one China” policy has subsequently been reaffirmed by every new incoming U.S. administration. The existence of this understanding has enabled the preservation of stability in the Taiwan Strait, allowing both Taiwan and mainland China to pursue their extraordinary political and socioeconomic transitions in relative peace.
As is confirmed in your first link, the USA acknowledges that the Chinese position is that Taiwan is a part of China, and recognise that the PRC is the government of China, they deliberately do not say if they consider Taiwan a part of China or not.
There’s a vast gulf between automated moderation systems deleting posts and calling the cops on someone.
Look, Reddit bad, AI bad. Engaging with anything more that the most surface level reactions is hard so why bother?
At a recent conference in Qatar, he said AI could even “unlock” a system where people use “sliders” to “choose their level of tolerance” about certain topics on social media.
That combined with a level of human review for people who feel they have been unfairly auto-moderated seems entirely reasonable to me.
Ok, but then you run into why does billions of vairables create free will in a human but not a computer? Does it create free will in a pig? A slug? A bacterium?
Modernised as in made to work on modern systems, not a change to the game.
I dont think that is the motivation, they already have modernised versions of these games available on steam.
For a bit of extra context, points 5,6 and 7 only apply if you distribute the software that is based on the GPL licenced software, if you just use it for your own internal use you dont have any obligations (not really relevant for games but just for additional info).
Its a very difficult subject, both sides have merit. I can see the “CSAM created without abuse could be used in treatment/management of people with these horrible urges” but I can also see “Allowing people to create CSAM could normalise it and lead to more actual abuse”.
Sadly its incredibly difficult for academics to study this subject and see which of those two is more prevalent.