"[H]egemony is active: it is 'structural' only to the extent that the hegemon hegemons. And if domestic institutions complicate that performance, then the hegemon can’t." @profmusgrave https://musgrave.substack.com/p/friction-matters
So often user interfaces are made less informative in the name of "simplifying" them. I dislike this trend.
@yarrriv A newspaper would not, but a website that features randomly or algorithmically or idiosyncratically curated "letters" does. That's precisely the effect of #Section230, for better or for worse. Websites are treated quite differently than offline publications that include "third party content".
@yarrriv I'm not asking about the you-and-ChatGPT have a talk case, but hypothetically if a site routinely solicits and publishes for a wide audience (like CNET is doing, albeit with human editors, in the piece @emilymbender highlights) content from LLMs, who if anyone is liable (especially if there are no human editors in the loop).
@ginnyhogan just mint yourself a platinum coin!
For Section 230 purposes, is AI generated text third party or first party content? If a site sets up basically unsupervised or algorithmically supervised routine publication of #ChatGPT content, is it under current US law liable for what the robot says? Would OpenAI be? Would anyone at all be? (inspired by @emilymbender https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/109716249225156006, though she presents a more traditionally publication-like, so arguably more likely liable, case.) #Section230
"When it comes to control, at the end of the day, building for everyone but not by and with everyone, irrespective of intentions, is just totalitarianism: morally despicable and bound to eventually fail." @robin, excellent on "The Internet Transition" https://berjon.com/internet-transition/ ht @blaine
Nobody knows who George Santos really is, but can it be a coincidence, that George Santos and George Soros are practically the same?! They're hiding it in plain sight, sheeple! Don't be blinded by the space lasers!
@vbuterin (i'm sure you're right that selection and saliency bias are a big part of why the cravenness seems from a distance so universal!)
@vbuterin there are lots of ways to be ambitious that aren't craven. ambition to rise in certain destructive hierarchies may require treating wealth as a status marker (level 70!), but choosing to compete in those games is choosing to be other than virtuous. videogame levels serve only to distinguish relative acumen in some notably narrow sphere. wealth and bought influence are life or death to people uninterested in strivers' games.
why are people who already have their fuck you money so often still so craven?
@Transportist tell it to the art thieves!
Good on Ardern, who was and is a good one.
most #MintTheCoin punditry fails to take into account the effect on the economy of an unprecedented boom in heist films.
the path to peace is our decisive victory is the one thing both belligerents could agree on.
@Nichol @SteveRoth @Mdavd @delong as long as it's decapitalitation we're talking about, not the other thing.
"what came first, the concrete or the abstract?" is like "what came first, the chicken on the egg?"
@blherrou i was hoping two years might limit the damage done.
@blherrou Seems wrong. 🙁
@blherrou if he runs for President and loses, does he get to stay governor? ("two more years" they chanted at his victory party, right?)