xor

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

Why not?

No, public companies and cooperatives are completely different things

The investors is not who they’re talking about sharing profits with

Coup! Coup! Coup! Coup! ✊

Now you too can be supreme leader

Big time

This is literally western media talking about it? Wdym about an “omerta”

It’s been the media consensus - at least on the left - that this amounts to genocide for quite a while now.

I did a quick search in the guardian, and they’ve been publishing articles regularly about it for well over a year at this point.

It means they believe the evidence they have is sufficient to show that it is genocide when considered together.

What’s confusing you here?

But the standards for an organisation like Amnesty International saying a state is committing genocide are much higher than a random person on the internet.

To make a claim like that, they have to have specific evidence satisfying the actual definitions in international law, which is what this whole report is about. It’s all well and good for you to go “well it’s obvious to me”, but that doesn’t meet the standards of evidence for a reputable NGO like them to make a statement like that.

They agree with your stance, so I’m not sure I understand why your response to them - explicitly - saying “this is genocide” is to chew them out for it.

That’s not what they said at all

I think the Brazilian coup was actually more viable than you might think, he probably could have pulled it off if it wasn’t for a small handful of military members who refused to take part.

Jan 6th was pathetic fr though

I’ve been baffled by this south Korean attempt, too, though. The consensus seems to be that he’d assumed his own party would back him (which presumably would have been enough that the opposition couldn’t form a majority against his declaration). I suppose he must have had strong military support to be so (overly) confident.

They never even mentioned Israel, you just decided that was their stance so you could call them a hypocrite

That’s a very reductive description of the orange revolution and euromaidan, though.

In both cases, the US didn’t come in and overthrow the Ukrainian government, there was no assassination, no military coup. At a stretch the most you could reasonably argue the US was involved was egging them on.

It was just an enormous number of Ukrainians protesting the abuse of their political system.

The first time, because the president ordered the kidnapping of a journalist ON VIDEO (whose body was then found, decapitated) then attempted to rig the election in favour of his successor - this resulted in massive protests until the election was re-run (this time with international observers) at the demand of their own supreme court.

The latter because the president ran on a platform of EU alignment, then immediately betrayed the people who elected him by doing the exact opposite in order to placate Russia. He was then removed by parliament, who had a legal right to do exactly that.

Note how, both times, the government was removed, not by a couple, but by the legitimate political institutions of the country.

deleted by creator

Regardless of whether the UK rejoins the EU, though, they’re still the most important trading partner, and it’s important to maintain a healthy relationship with the bloc

It’s not a proxy war if the primary aggressor is the great power - that’s just a war of aggression

Ruble DESTROYED by US sanctions

Making decisions and recognizing a state are fundamentally different things though, right?

Recognition is a very specific thing where a nation formally acknowledges their existence as a state, which also affects their ability to e.g. make diplomatic agreements.

But doing so is totally separate from how you act toward that nation in practice.

Russia, for example, recognises Ukraine as a country (currently), but actively does not respect their right to self-determination or their internationally recognised borders. But it would be wrong to claim that they don’t recognise Ukraine, despite that.

Got a source for this? Last I saw the ceasefire seems to still be holding, if tenuously