I find that ChatGPT isn't censoring, but it is being pretty weaselly. If you ask it "is there genocide in gaza". It will say no but also say that a lot of organizations classify it as such. It will then say "it's highly disputed".
If you poke it just a few times, however, you get to the point where it will eventually say (paraphrasing) that basically only Israel, the US state department, and the ICJ say it's not a genocide.
That is to say that it's framing it as some sort of tricky complex question when it's not. And when interrogated, it basically admits that the only people who dispute it are Israel and it's supporters.
We are on a thread discussing Chinese models. Every discussion on here that’s negative about China or its models suddenly gets derailed via whataboutism to Israel/Gaza. A very convenient distraction.
My history, unlike yours, is wide open. People can see I'm not a foreign agent. I don't throw this accusation at anyone other than throwaway accounts. I've had conversations in the past with pro-Israel HNs that I'd never accuse of being a foreign agent because their history is wide open and this isn't the only topic on their mind.
And yes, we were discussing censorship of models which, as I pointed out, doesn't seem like ChatGPT is directly censoring data though it does appear to be manipulating it. Pretty on topic.
It was you, brand new account hiding your past opinions, who came in here to make this solely about Israel.
Yeah, I think you are likely a foreign agent. Prove me wrong and post from an established account.
Not the person you're replying to. I'm white/non Jewish, and I have a law degree and work in the legal industry. My post history is 'wide open'.
Under no definition of genocide (as defined either going back to the middle 20th century or as that term is defined legally today) is Israel committing genocide. Simply put, there is no evidence that Israel is committing "specific acts with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." Intent is, as with almost everything in the criminal law, everything here. If you want to subdivide Muslimes in a way that results in, say, Hamas and Hezbollah being their own religious groups then you could mount the argument on that basis, but those are political designations and so good luck with that. And of course neither of those groups encompass the entirety of the national polities they claim to represent - just look at how hated Hezbollah is in Lebanon. They are being ostracised and even the Lebanese leaders want nothing to do with them at this point.
People like you degrade actual acts of genocide such as what happened with the Nazis or such as what has happened several times in SE Asia and Africa over the past 50 years. A country acting in self-defense is not genocide no matter how much it might hurt your sensibilities. Genocide is, as is obvious to most people, extremely difficult to prove. See Armenia for how fraught this debate is. But acts of brutality in a conflict or an extreme imbalance of military power between belligerents alone do not mean that genocide is occurring.
This is exactly what Marx meant by labourers being alienated from their work because none of them understood anymore how the repetitive task they did factored into the product sold.
We are going through a transition from a guild based software production with primitive division of labour to a machinery based one where AI is the steam engine and the job of the engineer is to build the production line, be the mechanic fixing the line, and also the assembly line worker.
This is an interesting comparison, but the resulting product of an LLM aren't deterministic in the same way machinery in an assembly line is. You typically expect to get the exact same thing every time as an assembly line worker, and it's usually fairly obvious when something is wrong or off.
So while I agree with your invocation of Marx and the alienation of labor, but I don't know if we really can compare it to the automation of manual labor.
It’s still a bit with only two possible values. But they add a scaling factor to a group of them (128 for example) which when you factor in, results in a fractional number of bits per parameter.
reply