It's private until all your connections start asking muse assistant to access it.

The amount of usage you get is insane when you stack OpenCode GO subsidy on top of contributor.

There is already evidence of groups setting websites and "think tanks" that aren't for human but for influencing AIs scraping them.

I wonder if having the contributor model read and summarize your propaganda would be even more effective. Instead of astroturfing reddit, just feed it to the model directly. Give it generated threads and ask it loaded questions.

Poisoning LLM? I remember at least one study about it. Perhaps but it would have to be very subtle otherwise they might flag your content and shadowban it from future training.

My personal opinion is that trying to make LLMs inefficient is futile and causes even more waste of earth resources.

It's like trying to stop a coal-powered locomotive by parking a truck on the rails. You're just going to make the thing burn more coal before reaching it's destination.

I wasn't talking about poisoning LLM for generally degrading performance/improvement. But for manipulating answers for propaganda/ideological reasons.

Both of them let you opt out of it on subscriptions.

Yeah, no one is obligated to engage with it. They did not dismiss the argument but refused to engage with it.

This is totally valid and the point is to send a signal to the “writers”.

And the signal I'm sending is, when I see people do that, I find it to be lazy and totally irrelevant to the content.

Do they not bother designing airframes to withstand more because the human wouldn't survive it anyway?

Yeah, we already have decades of prior-art for what can be done if you take a flying machine, remove the pilot, and then aggressively specialize the aggression, which are missiles that can experience up to 100 gees.

But in a completely flight envelope and range requirements. It is not a coincidence that missiles that are higher range (cruise missiles) have not retained the extreme maneuverability of short range, solid booster powered ones.

It's all a matter of trade-offs. If you design the airframe to withstand higher G forces that makes it heavier. Thus you sacrifice range and payload. There are very few real world scenarios where the ability to pull more G's is actually helpful.

Making the airframe even more rigid and capable of resisting extreme forces also makes the wings and fuselage and control surfaces much more heavy, so you end up in diminishing returns. Look at the 'final' revisions of the F16 sold for export that have had all sorts of pylons and conformal fuel tanks stuck onto them, compared to the original prototype. And that's just making it more heavy and laden down with stuff, not more capable of extreme maneuvers.

I don't have an issue with using the term poor to describe people lacking money but it has other definitions and uses.

The second and third definitions I get from define:poor on Google are:

- worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality.

- (of a person) considered to be deserving of pity or sympathy.

I suspect these might be why the term is discouraged.

So what? Natural language is complicated, because a) It does something very complicated, and b) it is the result of a complex process.

Yes, many words have more than one meaning. That's one of the many reasons why we need formal, context-free, specialized languages to communicate our will to machines effectively.

But humans are not machines. We can do context, and we can use words that mean more than one thing. We can also deal with misunderstandings much better than an automaton.

And this newspeak even fails at the goal of providing an unambiguous: Unless context is provided, a person who makes 6 figures a year is "financially disadvantaged" when compared to a billionaire. But noone would mistake someone earning 6 figures with someone who is poor.

Are you seriously asserting when people say "poor people", they do so in a non-poverty manner and use it instead to describe people as inferior?

Also, people in poverty should be deserving of sympathy and charity. Is that now suddenly offensive that people should want to help others that are less fortunate than themselves? If you are in a position where you need help, part of your responsibility is to humble yourself and let people help you (while not eradicating you're personal responsibility either). Someday you may be the one to give charity, and it's also just as insulting and disheartening when your charity is rejected out of pride.

In German the word for poor ("arm"), while there is some connection to pity like in English (one can be "arm dran", "poorly off"), can't be used to describe bad / undesirable quality.

It was still replaced with "sozial schwach" (literally "socially weak", but actually means financially weak, people who don't have much money) in many contexts, especially by politicians and journalists.

(Thankfully, there is a push against "sozial schwach", to use "arm" again - it's a horrible phrase)

In ten years, the shoes become economically disadvantaged too

Things like 1+1=2, water is wet, sky is blue?

>My (naive) hope is that this might also discourage offshoring and/or reward companies employing Americans, if enough people do likewise.

I doubt that. Instead they'll probably start using a service like https://www.respeecher.com/

Yeah, they spoof local numbers. I haven't lived in the city my area code is from in a long time. Occasionally I'll answer calls from there when I'm bored and it's always a scammer.

What's even more disturbing is that I'm now getting calls from people talking in Hindi. I answer in English but they ask me to switch to Hindi. (I'm from Pakistan and speak Urdu which is mutually intelligible with Hindi). I'm guessing it's to build familiarity/trust.

They want to pay off my phone, electric and other bills and in return I pay them 50% of the amount. I give them fake info and try to keep them on as long as possible... asking them to repeat multiple times. Sometimes I'll tell how thankful I am that they came to me with this 50% off offer because I'm facing financial troubles. Not once did any of them fell bad about trying to scam a poor person. Their response is usually something like "This is exactly why we are offering this service, to help people like you".

Eventually they get frustrated and hangup. This way I can hurt their ROI just a bit.

Similar to the Facebook outage earlier. Apparently everything is managed through Facebook accounts so employees could not get access to fix the issues.