I'm aware this is a cultural difference, government betrayal and overreach are hotbutton and mainstay topics in the common culture of the UK and related states (e.g. the US).
It is nevertheless so weird to me that rather than trying to monitor and mitigate the abuses of legal instruments like the ones proposed, people are trying to prevent and abolish things wholesale.
Everything is depicted as a slippery slope to abuse or as an excuse for abuse, and perhaps because people actually believe in it, they do materialize as one too. Presents as a vicious cycle to me, and as if people were disallowing themselves from recovering of it.
I really have to wonder how much of it is the available options always being just two parties in these territories, and the electoral systems supporting that convergence. In such a scheme, I can indeed definitely imagine people being compelled to vote further and further from their own interests and values, and the slippery slope rhetoric being finding a manifestation.
The reason why this is the case in the UK is because we have two different parties and an election, and we have ended up with the same result.
The reason why people think it is a slippery slop is because it is. Government shouldn't have any of these powers. In the UK, it has been proven over many years that this power cannot be wielded effectively by people working for government or oversight provided by elected officials.
As an example, the OSA...no-one needs this. You may not be aware but there is a massive issue with parenting in the UK. Children are turning up to school at 4 years old unable to communicate with adults (with no learning difficulties) or use the toilet. There is a very strong belief amongst civil servants (not ministers, they are basically irrelevant) that the state must step in to perform parenting functions. Does this sound like a good idea? This is the justification in many of these areas, Ofcom use to be a small agency that regulated what commercials could run on TV, it is now grown into Newspeak regulator...this isn't over 20 years, this has happened within the last three years.
People are seemingly very unhappy with the status quo, but also even unhappier when the Government tries to legislate around real issues. For example, people in hacker news seem to bring up grooming rape gangs specifically when talking about "Diversity" in the UK as a cudgel when the UK tries to introduce safety laws.
Meanwhile some of the most prolific child abusers are being sent to jail (who happened to be young 20s and white) who were only enabled to abuse hundreds of young people over a matter of months due to online platforms.
The latter example is the type of thing the UK Government is trying to tackle. The abuse is rife, but people would rather talk about "Diversity" and complain about laws clearly designed to protect children.
Do I want the laws? No. But other people have ruined it, and now we no longer live in a high trust society. I certainly want something that will try to lower the abuse women and children face from the Internet (and men).
I don't understand how comments like yours fundamentally misunderstand both complaints.
Regarding the Rape gangs. The complaint is "People migrated to the country and committed heinous crimes, the local authorities tried to cover it up". Therefore they want these people removed (in some cases they have not been deported) and be more picky about who is allowed to migrate. They also want the people involved in the cover up to face some sort of punishment.
They mention it because they believe it shows the establishments hypocrisy. I don't understand why you and others don't understand this.
> The latter example is the type of thing the UK Government is trying to tackle. The abuse is rife, but people would rather talk about "Diversity" and complain about laws clearly designed to protect children.
The problem is that the "think of the children" arguments are a tried and tested way of deflecting criticism when it comes to any argument about protecting privacy.
People aren't complaining about genuine attempts to catch online predators.
They are complaining about the fact that they have to put to put in their ID to go to Pornhub to watch some chick in her early 20s diddle herself.
It seems to me that in your view the sheer openness to evaluate LLM use, anecdotally or otherwise, is already a bias.
I don't see how that's sensible, given that to evaluate the utility of something, it's necessary to accept the possibility of that utility existing in the first place.
On the other hand, if this is not just me strawmanning you, your rejection of such a possibility is absolutely a bias, and it inhibits exploration.
To willfully conflate finding such an exploration illegitimate with the findings of someone who thinks otherwise as illegitimate, strikes me as extremely deceptive. I don't appreciate being forced to think with someone else's opinion covertly laundered in very much. And no, Tao's comments do not meet this same criteria, as his position is not covert, but explicit.
> ChatGPT will happily do its own private "literature search" and then not tell you about it
Also known as model inference. This is not something "private" or secret [*]. AI models are lossily compressed data stores and will always will be. The model doesn't report on such "searches", because they are not actual searches driven by model output, but just the regular operation of the model driven by the inference engine used.
> even Terence Tao has freely admitted as much
Bit of a (willfully?) misleading way of saying they actively looked for it on a best effort basis, isn't it?
[*] A valid point of criticism would be that the training data is kept private for the proprietary models Tao and co. using, so source finding becomes a goose chase with no definitive end to it.
An I think valid counterpoint however is that if locating such literature content is so difficult for subject matter experts, then the model being able to "do so" in itself is a demonstration of value. Even if the model is not able to venture a backreference, by virtue of that not being an actual search.
This is reflected in many other walks of life too. One of my long held ideas regarding UX for example is that features users are not able to find "do not exist".
It genuinely seemed to me that they were looking for empirical reproductions of a formal proof, which is a nonsensical demand and objection given what formal proofs are. My question was spurred on by this and genuine.
It may be that there wasn't enough information in your comment for me to read its intent correctly. I thought you were taking a snarky swipe at the other commenter—especially because most people on HN can be presumed to know what a formal proof is.
Thank you, I'll try to keep it in mind. I'll admit that the curtness of my original question was not just you misreading it, but it did (also) come from a place of genuine confusion.
For what it's worth, it's not even that I don't see merit to their points. I'm just unable to trust that they're being genuine, not the least for how they conduct themselves (which I only fault them for so much). This also impacts my ability to reason about their points clearly.
Sadly, I'm not able to pitch any systematic solutions.
If you don't stop, we're going to ban you. As I said, I don't want to—but when you respond to requests to stop breaking the site guidelines by breaking them again, that's not good.
I get how it's activating and annoying when moderators show up and start fault-finding, so I can appreciate the irritation here. But really, we're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't destroy itself. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to contribute positively to that.
What scientific field do you reckon the regular usage of LLMs falls under? Do you genuinely think Tao was making scientific claims or just provided evidence that may eventually feed into some? It reads to me like just a plain recollection of events, an anecdotal experience.
so are kings of England, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Netherlands & Arabia.
The Guardian Council is an elected body with the power to remove the so-called "Supreme Leader", so his power is limited too and is not hereditary, unlike monarchies of Europe and Asia
> so are kings of England, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Netherlands & Arabia
The first six of which to my understanding are token roles, sometimes de jure, but definitely de facto. This is unlike the role of the Iranian Supreme Leader, who according to my findings is heavily involved and has the license to do so.
I don't know what country Arabia is supposed to be.
> The Guardian Council is an elected body with the power to remove the so-called "Supreme Leader", so his power is limited too
You know that I considered and checked for all of this ahead of time, right? These loopholes are very on the nose.
The Supreme Leader directly elects 6 of the Guardian Council members, but also the judiciary chief, who elects the other 6.
The Supreme Leader is elected and kept in position by the people-elected Assembly of Experts, the applications for which are... filtered through by the Guardian Council. And considering they have never exercised their authority to as much as condemn but especially to remove a Supreme Leader according to my search, it's a reasonable conclusion that either everything is magically harmonious over there, or this authority in practice is a token one too.
I have also looked into whether these bodies are partial, and not only is this true covertly, it is true openly. Candidates that don't fit the bill on any of these levels are proudly filtered out in droves.
I'm really quite unconvinced you're here to inform with honesty in mind.
> The first six of which to my understanding are token roles, sometimes de jure, but definitely de facto.
All European kings have the power to dismiss the elected prime ministers and are the nominal head of the armed forces. Iran "Supreme Leader" has never removed any elected presidents or members of parliament and has no authority over government expenditures or taxes, therefore is not responsible for mis-management of economy.
So those who call for his removal are not motivated by economic hardship but are politically motivated who can't win democratic elections
> All European kings have the power to dismiss the elected prime ministers
This is false. For Sweden, and Andorra this is both de jure and de facto wrong, for others, it is still de facto wrong. Did you even read the line you quoted?
In the UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and Luxemburg, their monarchs do not dismiss the PM at will. They act on advice, and violating that norm would almost certainly force abdication or abolition. They are formally involved in appointing or dismissing a prime minister, but only within strict constitutional norms (loss of parliamentary confidence, resignation, elections). Acting unilaterally would trigger a constitutional crisis.
> and are the nominal head of the armed forces
This is once again false for Sweden and Andorra, and once again, only ceremonially (de jure) true for others, and wrong in practice (de facto false). Did you even read the line you quoted?
In contrast with all of this, the Supreme Leader of Iran:
- is a direct, actual commander-in-chief for Iran's armed forces, and is actively involved in its operations
- can directly dismiss some high officials and initiate the removal of others, and has complete if indirect control over who gets to run for their positions to begin with, and how a removal process would turn out
> Iran "Supreme Leader" has never removed any elected presidents or members of parliament
Your scare quoting of Supreme Leader is unjustified to the extent I can tell: checking in with language models, it is a correct and reasonable translation. Ironically, it might even be risky to do for someone in and from Iran, as it could get interpreted as criticizing him, which afaik is illegal and routinely punished.
This is further not a claim I made or even suggested: on the contrary, I laid it out through several paragraphs why and how the election of officials is manipulated at the source, rather than at the destination. Did you even read the comment you're responding to?
> has no authority over government expenditures or taxes, therefore is not responsible for mis-management of economy
Yes he does and is. Not only are large swaths of national economic activity, revenue streams, and spending functionally outside the ordinary budget process and under his control, he has supervisory authority that can shape fiscal policy indirectly through oversight powers. He also routinely sets "general policies" that are binding on the executive branch and influence budgeting priorities. Finally, which was the key point, he has influence over who can get elected into the various "people-elected" bodies that actually drive such policies and implement them. Did you even bother to understand the comment you're responding to?
> So those who call for his removal are not motivated by economic hardship but are politically motivated who can't win democratic elections
Nice opinion! I personally have no idea who's being blamed in these protests, didn't care to read up on it. The economic hardships of Iran are of no controversy to my understanding though, so I don't know why you would put that in question.
Regarding political struggle, to my understanding, most parties and people who would run don't even get to run in the first place (did you read what I wrote?). So it makes little sense to discuss the capability of them "winning" an election, when they can't even run on it. Unless you meant to suggest you think they're justified in triggering an uprising, but then I don't know why you'd be against the protests.
> But the supreme leader elects the Guardian Council
No he doesn't... Half of are recommended by judiciary to be approved by Parliament, the other half are appointed by the supreme leader for six year term. This ensures all three branches of government have equal stakes. It's not unlike the House of Lords in England, half of whose members are appointed by the king or are hereditary.
The Assembly of Experts members are elected directly by the people every 8 years, and it operates independently of the Guardian Council once it's seated.
> It's a circular logic. He elects people who elect him.
"Supreme Leader" does not elect anyone, he appoints the head of judiciary, according to the tradition and customs of Sharia law. People elect parliament, president and Assembly of Experts. The Guardian Counsel's only power is to certify minimum qualifications of candidates, according to election laws not personal prerogative of the "Supreme Leader".
Iran's "regime" is only 45 years old, the first 8 years of which was in war and the last 25 years, under sanctions by the Western "democracies". This is after 3,000 years of absolute monarchy or occupation.
You, your king and your Mossad handlers may control the internet, but will never be able to return to Iran.
Your attempts at justifying Iran's self-identification of a republic as legitimate have been thoroughly falsified by me in a comment above. I don't know why you keep trying to pretend that it is a republic, it is still blatantly a theocratic monarchy in all but name. I have thoroughly justified how their regime, no scare quotes, and its Supreme Leader, no scare quotes, is held in place by undemocratic, circular, and corrupt processes. These are legal and practical facts you have not been able to contend. They're further so uncontroversial and boring, it boggles the mind you're trying to paint them otherwise. It's not even necessary to claim otherwise per se: history books detail countless bona fide, self-identified monarchies where the people were satisfied and the economic situation was decent. Which is to say, Iran could (in principle) just as well adopt a different leadership, still remain a pseudo monarchy (or even turn again into an explicit one), yet economically prosper with their populace satisfied. It is an invariant. Indeed, if the Iranian regime has any common sense and they're genuinely the one faulted at all by the people (which I still haven't confirmed nor care of), they'll just scapegoat the currently incumbent people-elected bodies for any wrongdoing, maybe rotate them, and call it a day. Would be basically standard political practice.
All accusing random people of being an Israeli spy does, especially when all the evidence for it is just them trying to contextualize your misleading comments, is render you an untrustworthy narrator of a then-evidently dishonest narrative. As if you ran out of convenient facts, so you pivoted to convenient speculations. It is very clear you're here to paint Iran as something it isn't, absolving their leadership from being at any fault or having any responsibility for the protests discussed by handwaving away their significance in its totality. It is further very clear that you're not here to do so via any appreciable, honest means, and that you get hostile specifically in response to when you get called out for this, indicating both a strong and a willful bias.
I further don't understand all this "your king" stuff. What king? You even claimed their "king" is elected by "Trump or Satanyahu", when in an earlier comment you explicitly prided Iran on how it's not like European or Asian monarchies, with their hereditary processes. Surely you can appreciate the contradiction.
> (...) your king (...) may control the internet, but will never be able to return to Iran
I'm confused. So you're claiming
- the guy above has a king, so they're currently nationals at one of these places: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Eswatini, Grenada, Jamaica, Jordan, Lesotho, Malaysia, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The Bahamas, Tonga, Tuvalu, and the UK. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchs_of_so...)
- that king was elected, leaving: Cambodia, Eswatini, Jordan, and Malaysia (see the same link as previously)
- that king would have an interest to return to Iran, implying they must be former Iranian nationals: none of the aforementioned kings fit this bill
- that king was elected by Satanyahu, i.e. that king is an Israeli spy; as per the previous facts, this cannot be, there's no one remaining
- the guy above is an Israeli spy
I'm honestly mystified just what kind of character you're envisioning that could match all this, and why do you keep suggesting that he's presently a national at a place that clearly cannot exist, for being lead by a king with an impossible combination of characteristics. Even if you did not literally want to suggest a king, and that was sarcasm, that still doesn't clarify much. Is this some kind of political bravado specific to where you're from?
> The Assembly of Experts members are elected directly by the people every 8 years,
But who gets on the ballot is controlled by the Guardian Council. So it's like how you could get the first car Ford produced in any color, as long as that color was the color black.
Surely this is not new info to you?
> Who elects your king? Trump or Satanyahu
If you think this is a boxing or football match of some sort, please consult the forum guidelines. We're not here to beat each other (or you) down.
> The event was framed by authorities as a demonstration of national solidarity amid a backdrop of ongoing unrest and anti-government protests across multiple Iranian cities, which entered their second week
There are no anti-government “protests” anywhere near as large as what I posted. I can’t disprove something that never existed in the first place. As for Zionist in nature, 100% of the people falsely claiming there are massive anti Iran protests are militant Zionists.
But anti-government protests you do acknowledge exist. What's preventing you from referencing those to demonstrate that they are small and few in comparison? What's preventing you from demonstrating that they're Israeli orchestrated like you're claiming?
> 100% of the people falsely claiming there are massive anti Iran protests are militant Zionists.
So your evidence is just you being 100% certain?
Edit:
In reply, you inquired if I myself was a Zionist, and if I thought Israel had a right to exist. Your post was flagged before I could formulate a response.
I'm not a Zionist. Not for any principled reason mind you, but because up until half an hour ago I did not even know what it was about exactly. Had to look it up.
Regarding your second question, I don't think countries come into existence by having some sort of (moral or legal) right to do so, so that's a bit of a loaded question I'm thus not able to answer.
I really don't know why I even bothered to answer these with honesty, you clearly did not ask in good faith. Should have just dodged them like you did with my questions.
I gave this a skim and a keyword search. Note that I'm not familiar with the matter.
The article claims that the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar that kicked off in 2017 has been substantively fueled by Facebook propaganda efforts, with strong links to Myanmar's own "security forces" (military).
> it's to prevent foreign interference (like CIA) from fueling civil unrest and spreading AI deepfakes, as seen in Myanmar and Brazil
In contrast then, you seem to allege that it was actually a foreign interference campaign by the CIA? Or am I misunderstanding what you're proposing?
Because if I'm not, I fail to see how what you linked supports that at all. Even your mention of deepfakes seems very questionable, as those haven't been a thing until late 2017, by which point this cleansing effort was already long underway. I further see that the US has formally condemned these events, although of course that does not rule out involvement.
CIA and Amnesty's claims aside, focus on how social media fuels civil unrest, the real concern is foreign interference, Iran has been a target for a very long time
The US wants a regime change, that's a fact, Trump has been very vocal on the matter, and the NSA has the tools to do what ever it pleases on the internet (e.g., PRISM)
People can focus on a lot of things and make any arbitrary narrative emerge. My problem is exactly that I do not find this angle compelling so far, especially in light of the to-me-obvious alternative.
You started off by listing a bunch of things that did not pass my smell test (and you have now walked back on), then followed it up by what's essentially a scattershot of vague gesturings. Why would I focus on what you tell me to? Not only is any of these not compelling, I do not find you a reliable narrator so far at all.
You know what else fuels unrest - potentially not having basic needs met by society. There is a major economic crisis in Iran. There is an impending water crisis.
Social media is a new thing, but protests are old. People protested in despotic regimes prior to social media, and the triggering factors were basically the same as what is happening in Iran right now.
> Social media is a new thing, but protests are old. People protested in despotic regimes prior to social media, and the triggering factors were basically the same as what is happening in Iran right now.
In fact, Social medias can make the co-ordination of protests and other information rather quickly. Its one of the few benefits of social medias. Social media with all its flaws still helps protests
They're actually two separate claims, one of which the blogpost does support. The other one is seemingly ought to be supported by some conversations on a Discord server.
The concern is obvious though, not sure what's unclear about that: it's a bit pointless to have E2EE, if the adversary has full access to one of the ends anyways.
Short of suspecting a malicious tarball, I really can't think of a reason why "publish[ing] their code on an independent third-party public code sharing platform" would be a selling point. You're getting the source code straight from the horse's mouth this way.
It is nevertheless so weird to me that rather than trying to monitor and mitigate the abuses of legal instruments like the ones proposed, people are trying to prevent and abolish things wholesale.
Everything is depicted as a slippery slope to abuse or as an excuse for abuse, and perhaps because people actually believe in it, they do materialize as one too. Presents as a vicious cycle to me, and as if people were disallowing themselves from recovering of it.
I really have to wonder how much of it is the available options always being just two parties in these territories, and the electoral systems supporting that convergence. In such a scheme, I can indeed definitely imagine people being compelled to vote further and further from their own interests and values, and the slippery slope rhetoric being finding a manifestation.
reply