mozz

You for real made me laugh out loud 😃

I don't think the person is dumb, maybe just panicked about anything that might lead to Trump, which I get. And yes I definitely believe there is fascist-enabling propaganda on this topic.

But in any case I appreciate the note, I will not attempt to redirect them to you or etc

Makes sense. And yeah. That's non toxic masculinity (or, whatever you want to call it, the gender-neutral term). It's okay to want to overcome real challenge and feel like you're strong and capable and test yourself. In some circles it is even encouraged.

Some time back I compared the Biden State Dept to the Nazis; just today I posted an article from Ralph Nader which was the good-faith and productive version of what "the Democrats don't deserve our vote" is the not-sensible version of. (Basically, the Democrats need to listen better, and move to the left, otherwise they're going to keep losing and they deserve to)

You're free to think whatever you want, but I think you're much more engaged in putting me in a particular box than any substantive discussion. We don't actually disagree, as far as I can tell, on this factually at all. All these words have just been spent on you trying to put me into a particular box which isn't accurate. I honestly don't know exactly why you're doing that, but all good.

They definitely didn't train their own model; there are only a few places in the world that can do that and Gab isn't one of them. Almost every one of these bots, as I understand it, is a frontend over one of the main models (usually GPT or Mistral or Llama.)

I only spent a short time with this one but I am pretty confident it's not GPT-4. No idea why that part is in the prompt; maybe it's a leftover from an earlier iteration. The Gab bot responds too quickly and doesn't seem as capable as GPT-4 (and also, I think OpenAI's content filters just wouldn't allow a prompt like this.)

There's a myth that climate scientists made the whole thing up to be able to publish papers and make their careers without producing anything of value. Because, you know, climate science is a glamorous and lucrative career where no one will ever examine your work closely or check it independently.

There are think tanks that specifically come up with these myths to be vaguely plausible and then the good ones get distributed deliberately because people are making billions of dollars every year that action gets delayed. There's a bunch of them. On the target audience they work quite well. I actually had someone whose family member died of Covid tell me that his brother-in-law didn't really die of Covid, he died of something else, because it's all overblown and the hospitals are doing a similar scam to this myth (i.e. making it out as a bigger deal than it needs to be.)

Correct. I was confident enough of what was in it based on a bunch of these stories that I've read, to predict.

You can say that's unfair, which I guess is legitimate, but I was right. Once we started getting into details I read the article and it contains exactly what I thought it contained.

😃

I regret using up all my free credits

You are overestimating the alt-right's appetite for honest work. To all appearances they just took a fully-stock model, slapped a racist prompt on the front of it, and called it a day.

Are you talking about MoE? Can you link me to more about this? I know about networks that do this approach for picking the next token, but I'm not aware of any real chatbot that actually runs multiple LLMs and then votes on the outcome or anything. I'm interested to know more if that's really what it is.

Orwell called this "doublethink" and identified it, correctly, as one of the most vital features of a certain type of political structure.

From the article:

[Nader]'s efforts resulted in the creation of some pillars of the regulatory state: the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Act, among others.

He got his start with auto safety, which has probably saved millions of lives by now, but he proceeded from there to pretty much tireless work on progressive issues in Washington for his entire life. He was successful enough to fall into the groundbreaking musician's trap, of "I don't see what difference he made" because the things he created were so seismic that now they seem like part of the landscape.

Let me be more specific, then:

Ramos is one of many young voters stewing with grievances over the country's future, from the existential crisis of climate change to the frustration over inflation, reproductive rights, high interest rates, Israel's war in Gaza, immigration reform and the power corporations have over their working conditions.

She's mad Biden and Democrats have failed to protect reproductive rights or wipe out student loans. (emphasis mine)

These people are wrong. Full stop. The logic they're using makes no sense, because factually, their ideas about what Biden has and hasn't done don't line up with reality.

And, I strongly suspect that this particular article has cherry-picked these particular people to present a particular narrative, instead of honestly trying to inform its readers about what's actually going on.

So maybe it's OTT for me to say I don't care what these people think. If you want to talk about fixing the media so these particular people won't be so wrong that they'll bring up student loans as a big example of something Biden hasn't done, that would lead them not to vote for him even over Trump, then that sounds great. But if the idea is that I have to listen to their ideas and take them seriously, then no, I don't think I do, because they're wrong. There's a huge difference between that viewpoint and the standard DNC viewpoint of "IDC if you're suffering, I don't want to listen or try to help you solve it."

I took some time to carve out and explicitly agree with you about the standard DNC viewpoint, because you and I are on the same page about it. If you want to argue though that these particular people are ones that Biden needs to be listening to because they're worth listening to, I'm going to keep saying, no, they're not.