So that means there it offers zero protection against private corporations? It seems like that is a bad idea, isn't it better to say people have rights that nobody is allowed to violate instead? Like freedom of speech doesn't matter much if private corporations are allowed to silence you.
And then the anti terminator legislation where people will propose to end this over and over until its ended. EU isn't like USA, you have endless proposals in both directions.
Humans can accurately retell what their consciousness was doing, but they have no clue why their unconsciousness responded as it did.
LLM is just that unconsciousness part that humans have to post hoc explain like that, and lacks the conscious part that we humans actually can inspect in ourselves.
If the AI had some introspection part where it actually tracks its reasoning maybe it would be closer to conscious humans. Its too expensive to do that everywhere ofc, not even us humans tracks everything like that, just a tiny bit, but tracking that tiny bit is enough for so much error correction to happen.
> But in my experience, decreased cravings make it easier to choose food rationally. The food noise that causes people to overeat usually doesn’t cause them to overeat healthy foods anyway.
"Food noise" is much more than just craving calories, we have cravings for most of the different nutrients we need. That is how people ate a balanced diet in history even though it was much harder to do back then, peasants craved meat and vegetables even though it was easier to just eat potatoes for calories.
What happens in those cases is that the majority vote to force everyone to defend the country. Its just easier that way since it means you wont be defending alone, if everyone defends together then its very unlikely the country will fall while if just volunteers does it then almost any country will fall.
Thinking you can defend a country just via volunteers is like thinking you can pay for a country just via charity, we vote to tax everyone for a reason. And people do that voluntarily afterwards, they are fine paying taxes as long as everyone is required to pay, same with defending the country.
That exists in every single country, your political system not being able to handle that is the main issue. The voters are never the issue, the system is.
The UK is more geographically diverse than USA, so Scotland votes for their party and so on. USA doesn't have that, every part of the country votes very similarly, even the most extreme states still votes very similarly to each other.
> I'm sorry to break it to you - the plural you - but all the terrorists that are not traditionally domestic (local leftist/rightist extremists are everywhere, after all) - and the fact they are against the West - is simply a consequence of Western politics.
Then why doesn't south America perform a lot of terrorist attacks? If that was the reason then you would see sub saharan africa perform way more terrorist attacks than the middle east.
No, the elephant in the room is religious zealots, they perform terrorist attacks, most other groups do not perform a lot of terrorism. A history of oppression just makes you happy the oppressors left, it doesn't make you a terrorist that go and try to make the oppressors come back like the middle east does.
When did USA bomb a civilian house that wasn't a part of a larger operation? Terrorist attacks only target civilians, I have never seen such an attack by USA. They always try to target military or leaders.
The last time I know USA did a terror attack was japan in ww2, but everyone did terror bombing during that war, and the first world stopped doing terror bombings since then. If USA still ran that doctrine you would have Tehran and the rest of major Iranian cities leveled to the ground now, that is what it looks like when the strongest military in the world perform terror attacks.
Right, so the government should be based on brands rather than people. USA trying to make a people centric system still ended up into a brand centric republican vs democrat, just that now those brands changes dramatically every 4 years just people still vote for the brand even after it changes.
Its much more stable when you have stable political party brands like in multi party system, then a person voting for the same brand for 40 years will vote for roughly the same politics instead of it changing all the time.
> But governments are basically the only party that can act with the well being of citizens, as opposed to shareholders, in mind.
Founders that hasn't gone public yet and sold out are the only ones. The government has already sold out to shareholders, at least in USA.
And no its not just "hire good people", its not just "raise wages". What happens if you raise wages is that the useless people get more money, since the ones who decide who to hire are still bad at hiring, so them raising wages without hiring better people is also a form of corruption.
In the end you need to do a deep cleanse to fix it, there are no easy fixes. Root out all plants from all interest groups, everyone that has been bribed via lobbyism money etc, in the entire government...
At most you could do multiple choice questions, or questions with a single objective answer such as "what is the capital of France". But such tests aren't very helpful to learn new things.
Students cannot grade their own answers for more complex problems, they make mistakes but say they are correct since they don't understand the material, or they are correct but since it doesn't say the exact same thing as the example answer they say they are wrong and correct it even though it was already correct. And an LLM would be even worse than that at correcting tests.
This is not a bias against you, its just a general thing that applies to all students and people. Nobody is good at correcting their own work, even the most esteemed professor gets his work checked by other people. And an LLM is not another person here, they aren't good enough to check your work.
Note its much harder to accurately grade an answer than to answer a question.
And he was right, that is why we don't let people bring their textbooks to most tests. That rule wasn't made because we hate students, its because it improves the outcomes if we force people to commit things to memory instead of just looking them up.
You would need similar restrictions during the learning phase to get people to learn things in an LLM world.
So writing and LLM are still a net positive, but only if you acknowledge the problem and add fixes so people still learn rather than just rely on this crutch.