xor

This is a different scenario, though. The Hannibal directive is specifically targeting YOU, not the vehicle.

So your scenario should be more like:

You have armed militants who take you hostage, putting you in the front seat of the van

Would you rather they:

• do nothing now, and try to rescue you when safely possible
• shoot you in the head

I’m not necessarily saying they’re conflicting goals, merely that they’re not the same goal.

The incentive for the generator becomes “generate propaganda that doesn’t have the language chatacteristics of typical LLMs”, so the incentive is split between those goals. As a simplified example, if the additional incentive were “include the word bamboo in every response”, I think we would both agree that it would do a worse job at its original goal, since the constraint means that outputs that would have been optimal previously are now considered poor responses.

Meanwhile, the detector network has a far simpler task - given some input string, give back a value representing the confidence it was output by a system rather than a person.

I think it’s also worth considering that LLMs don’t “think” in the same way people do - where people construct an abstract thought, then find the best combinations of words to express that thought, an LLM generates words that are likely to follow the preceding ones (including prompts). This does leave some space for detecting these different approaches better than at random, even though it’s impossible to do so reliably.

But I guess really the important thing is that people running these bots don’t really care if it’s possible to find that the content is likely generated, just so long as it’s not so obvious that the content gets removed. This means they’re not really incentivised to spend money training models to avoid detection.

Sure, but then the generator AI is no longer optimised to generate whatever you wanted initially, but to generate text that fools the detector network, thus making the original generator worse at its intended job.

No, public companies and cooperatives are completely different things

The investors is not who they’re talking about sharing profits with

Coup! Coup! Coup! Coup! ✊

Now you too can be supreme leader

Big time

This is literally western media talking about it? Wdym about an “omerta”

It’s been the media consensus - at least on the left - that this amounts to genocide for quite a while now.

I did a quick search in the guardian, and they’ve been publishing articles regularly about it for well over a year at this point.

It means they believe the evidence they have is sufficient to show that it is genocide when considered together.

What’s confusing you here?

But the standards for an organisation like Amnesty International saying a state is committing genocide are much higher than a random person on the internet.

To make a claim like that, they have to have specific evidence satisfying the actual definitions in international law, which is what this whole report is about. It’s all well and good for you to go “well it’s obvious to me”, but that doesn’t meet the standards of evidence for a reputable NGO like them to make a statement like that.

They agree with your stance, so I’m not sure I understand why your response to them - explicitly - saying “this is genocide” is to chew them out for it.

I think the Brazilian coup was actually more viable than you might think, he probably could have pulled it off if it wasn’t for a small handful of military members who refused to take part.

Jan 6th was pathetic fr though

I’ve been baffled by this south Korean attempt, too, though. The consensus seems to be that he’d assumed his own party would back him (which presumably would have been enough that the opposition couldn’t form a majority against his declaration). I suppose he must have had strong military support to be so (overly) confident.

Regardless of whether the UK rejoins the EU, though, they’re still the most important trading partner, and it’s important to maintain a healthy relationship with the bloc

Ruble DESTROYED by US sanctions

Making decisions and recognizing a state are fundamentally different things though, right?

Recognition is a very specific thing where a nation formally acknowledges their existence as a state, which also affects their ability to e.g. make diplomatic agreements.

But doing so is totally separate from how you act toward that nation in practice.

Russia, for example, recognises Ukraine as a country (currently), but actively does not respect their right to self-determination or their internationally recognised borders. But it would be wrong to claim that they don’t recognise Ukraine, despite that.

Got a source for this? Last I saw the ceasefire seems to still be holding, if tenuously

The short answer is about the same as yesterday.

The ceasefire defines a 60 day window for them to gradually withdraw (at an agreed rate), while Hezbollah moves away to the north and the Lebanese military move into the south.

RJ45 and HMDI in particular are way thicker than usb-c

Sure, but you’ll notice I explicitly referenced that when I said hamas is incentivised to minimise risk of them being hit by Israeli strikes, especially by keeping them separately in members’ homes and in tunnels. The same goes for starvation, in that, if at all possible, hamas actively wants to keep them fed enough to survive, where that isn’t at the cost of starving to death themselves.

You’re right that some/many (maybe even most, I have no data wrt specific numbers) of the hostages have, and will continue to die due to Israel’s actions, but that’s significantly different from your initial claim of “every single hostage is dead”

Yes indeed, sadly the US is not a signatory

I mean I’m inclined to believe so, given both hamas and Israel claim it’s the case

Hamas are incentivised to not kill them arbitrarily (or put them at risk of being killed in Israeli strikes) because it’s their primary bargaining chip, and Israel are incentivised to avoid targeting them for political reasons