I would hope this results in criminal charges and jail time. Honestly, even if it's by negligence and not deliberate. Fines are not enough to abate this kind of despicable behavior.
The only possible reason for barriers to entry is regulation? There are many industries where startup costs are high for reasons intrinsic to the business and margins are relatively low so you are unlikely to get investment from outside sources. Grocery stores for example. You are trying to apply a toy model from econ 101 to explain the behavior of complex real world markets, and when the model doesn't fit you invent bogeymen to blame. This is more like religious fundamentalism than any kind of science.
Every post that is even remotely critical of ChatGPT has someone posting this exact sentiment like clockwork. It's probably just mindless fanboys, but I'm genuinely starting to wonder if it's some kind of astroturfed ad campaign for OpenAI.
Worth pointing out that sometimes things really are impossible. If an MBA tells you something is impossible, it is probably just really hard. If a physicist tells you your idea violates conservation of energy, it is probably not worth wasting your life chasing it.
This is a really fun use of language models. I wonder if more capable models would be better or worse in this kind of application? To some extent the charm comes from the whimsical aspect of it.
Did you read the article or just the title? They mention the specific models the researchers were testing and note that increasing model size did not seem to offer much improvement on this metric. It also ends with a discussion of research into methods for improving performance on queries involving negation.
Even if we accept their motivations at face value (which is naive), it's a totally incoherent morality. There are infinitely many future states with trillions of of lives. Which one is the one we attach moral value to? If it's all of them, then every single decision you make is equivalent to killing infinitely many future people. If it's one particular future state how do we decide which one? (I am not, of course, saying that you shouldn't value making the future better, just that applying this specific kind of utilitarian calculus to future humans is childish nonsense.)
It gets reposted because it confirms the biases of right-wing posters and is an easy way for them to farm positive engagement and feel like they have some special insight into current events.
If the OpenAI is using a machine learning system to flag comments as hateful there is a simple and parsimonious explanation: it simply had more examples of hate speech directed at minority groups and people with left-leaning politics. Interesting that the author never considers this and instead implies some nefarious political intent on the part of OpenAI.
I'm all for people pursuing amateur chemistry if they want to, but they should be doing so with accurate resources. The Anarchist Cookbook is not reckless. It's just straight up wrong in a lot of places in ways that very well could get you killed. Making homemade explosives is reckless, doing it poorly is just stupid. If you want to make explosives there are better guides on YouTube of all places. There is no reason at all to use this dated book full of inaccuracies.
I would tend to agree. The only people I saw really struggle with learning Fourier series and the Fourier transform were people who had struggled with more basic concepts and failed to internalize them. This kind of explanation might be helpful to build someone's intuition up a bit but is not a substitute for a proper education on the subject and definitely not some magic key to understanding.
The methodology they describe seems like it would be prone to the multiple comparisons problem. Time to dredge up the actual study and see what's going on.
While it's true that some of the simpler recipes will work, a lot of the others just won't work or are dangerous. From memory, the TNT and mercury fulminate recipes are wildly dangerous and omit key steps. Messing with stuff like this in any capacity is dangerous, even with proper PPE and good procedures, but if you must, there are much better resources available freely online these days.
Please, for the love of God, don't follow any of the recipes in here. Many are dangerously wrong (as in blow yourself and your neighbors up dangerous).
Nothing in this contradicts what I said. Prisoners have a right to informed consent which can be removed in certain circumstances, specifically to ensure the safety of staff or other inmates. You made a much broader categorical claim that prisoners simply do not have the right to informed consent and you are wrong. For example, here is a document from Tennessee outlining the scenarios in which an inmate can and cannot refuse care: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/correction/documents/113-5...
I'd suggest doing some actual research into the relevant case law, e.g. Washington v Harper, instead of just googling until you find something that can be misinterpreted to support your position. While prison administrators have wide leeway to force treatment they are still required to show that it's necessary, either for safety reasons or because the treatment was mandated as part of the sentence of the inmate.
The irony of complaining about cherry picking statistics while yourself cherry picking statistics is astounding. If you combine federal and state prisons about 40% of prisoners are reported to be in prison for violent offenses (in 2019 according to statistics prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics). So, yes, the majority of prisoners are in fact imprisoned for non-violent offenses. But this is not the end of the story, there is no universal standard for what is considered a "violent crime" so states are free to set their own standards (often under considerable political pressure from the local legislature). Some states consider any theft involving drugs or even embezzlement as violent crimes. Beyond this, these statistics are collected and maintained by the same institutions which have a direct monetary incentive to over report violent crime in order to obtain increased funding. This is a clear conflict of interest.
But even if violent offenders were the majority, violent offenders in general are, perhaps surprisingly, less likely to reoffend. This is because the best predictors of violence in the general population are age and secondarily gender. The overwhelming amount of violent crime is committed by male adolescents and young men. While we may be fascinated with macabre cases where serial killers and other extreme offenders were released, these are outliers. We should not base policy decisions on our emotional responses to crime but on measurable outcomes.