Downvote Musk spam.
The billionaire doesn’t need your help ensuring him and his businesses stay in the 24 hour news cycle. Don’t be a useful idiot.
Whenever he does something bad, we actually want to keep it in the news as long as possible. When he went full antisemitic, keeping it in the news made a bunch of corporations pull their ads. And judging from the interview with Musk afterwards, it did significant damage to Twitter and to him.
Companies wouldn’t be cancelling ads if they thought it would be a tiny, inconsequential peace of news. They cut ties with Musk instantly because they expected the conversation about it to persist and hurt any associated brands. They expected it would stay in the news.
So broadcast loud and clear when he shits the bed, and use it to prove to people that billionaires aren’t special or distinctive. Now that said, I actually agree with you for this specific article. It seems inconsequential and not worth keeping in the public zeitgeist.
Using someone’s preferred pronouns isn’t woke, it’s basic human decency.
Motherfuckers calling each other by their online nicknames since wow released in 2004, now complaining about someone asking to be called certain way.
As a straight dude, I’m not about to call another dude ‘miss’. Don’t force me into your convention.
Ah yes, because acting with basic decency towards a [TYPE OF PERSON] definitely means you must be a little bit [TYPE OF PERSON] too.
Using someone’s preferred pronouns isn’t woke, it’s basic human decency.
Basic human decency is woke.
These terms tend to get abused by jerks so much that they start to mean something else. I have seen too many people identifying as “woke” who use bullying as a method of getting their way, lack compassion for anyone who doesn’t share their views, shaming others, and are generally tribalistic.
Basic human decency would be to see the person behind a political view and understand that they have fears and pains, to be curious about them and try to understand where they’re coming from. And then talk with them from a place of compassion. We’re all a product of our genes and experiences, and everybody is a hero in their own story.
Elon too, while misguided, wants to do good. But look at how his dad has treated him growing up: called him an idiot his entire life, impregnated his step sister, and emotionally and physically abused him. Plus I’m pretty sure he’s neurodivergent. If anybody wants to get him to see the error of his ways, more abusive language is certainly not going to help. He’s being pushed into a corner and in his mind he sees a world that is increasingly broken by vile people who don’t understand him or his vision for improving the world. I think he believes his own words when he talks about “neutral” politics, but his idea of neutral has been severely skewed. Elon has in fact done a lot of good for the world, but he needs people he trust to keep his feet on the ground. That can’t be achieved by chastising him, but by praising the things he does well and getting him to spend more time among “normal” people and good role models. In the meantime though, to protect the world from powerful broken men, we need regulation to keep them fenced off.
Elon too, while misguided, wants to do good
There’s no reason to believe this.
But look at how his dad has treated him growing up
An explanation as to why someone’s a bad person doesn’t make them less bad.
Plus I’m pretty sure he’s neurodivergent.
He’s autistic. Most autistic people aren’t narcissistic megalomaniacs, and if they are, they should be called out for it.
If anybody wants to get him to see the error of his ways, more abusive language is certainly not going to help.
A moot point, he will not accept anything but the yes men he grew up around and lived the last 52 years being applauded by.
He’s being pushed into a corner and in his mind he sees a world that is increasingly broken by vile people who don’t understand him or his vision for improving the world.
I do understand his vision, and the vision is broken and harmful.
Elon has in fact done a lot of good for the world, but he needs people he trust to keep his feet on the ground.
He has? Like his racially segregated factories? Or the monkeys he experiments on the brains of?
That can’t be achieved by chastising him, but by praising the things he does well and getting him to spend more time among “normal” people and good role models
This is ineffective with people in such a power position.
In the meantime though, to protect the world from powerful broken men, we need regulation to keep them fenced off.
Agreed.
Ultimately, Elon Musk is a genuinely harmful and bad person, who is both uncritically malicious to those who dare criticize him, and is incredibly foolish at every endeavour he involves himself in. “His” successes come as a result of people he hired walling him off in his companies so that he continues to invest in technologies while being blind to any important part of production he might find interesting enough to meddle in.
Your take on him is one I can empathize with, and I even held myself for a while, but at the end of the day, it’s a benefit of the doubt he expressly does not deserve.
Maybe this is somehow enlightening to someone who has never considered someone they (morally, religiously, ethically, politically) oppose human, but I am aware of all this and recognise that Elon Musk is still a piece of shit whose bigotry has made him hated in public and his private life. Over and over he makes the choice to be a dog turd, and that’s not somehow the fault of wokies, even when they’re misguided. It’s like when racists say “well they kept calling me a racist for no good reason, so now I actually am”. He’s not a 4 year old that just needs to be gentle parented. He’s a full-grown adult that needs to stop perpetually throwing temper tantrums when someone disagrees with him.
Bollocks. I don’t believe you have seen too many people identifying as woke. People that hold the beliefs you’re talking about don’t generally identify as woke. You’re talking about attitudes attributed to wokedom entirely by conservatives trying to rile up their base. They’re using moral panic via the culture war to politically destabilise in an environment where they have no policy to bring to the table that anyone wants, and you’ve fallen for it. Go consume some actual leftist content and try to critique it the way you are now in good faith. You won’t be able to.
Wouldn’t trying to train an AI to be politically neutral from twitter be a pretty lost cause considering the majority of the site is very left leaning? Like sure it wouldn’t be as bad for political bias as say truth social( or whatever it’s called), but I hope they’re using a good amount or external data or at least trying to pick more unbiased parts of twitter to train it with. If they’re goal is to be politically neutral.
The majority of the site was left leaning in the past, but the extent has been exaggerated. There was always a sizable right wing presence of the “PATRIOT who loves Jesus and Trump and 2A!” variety, and some of the most popular accounts were people like Dan Bongina and Ben Shapiro. Many people who disagree with Musk and fascists have left the site since then at the same time as its attracted more right wingers, so I don’t know what the mix is at this point.
This is similar to Facebook. FB was “censoring conservatives” and “shadow banning” them when Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino, and Trump posts had the highest engagement on the site.
Yep. It’s part of their persecution/victim complex. It’s an easy way to escape accountability for anything - their orange chimplord does the same thing. “Very unfair”. They can’t figure it out, but they get silenced and banned because (drumroll…) they break the rules more, usually by calling for violence.
Similar on reddit. Reddit is predominantly left, but much less so than 10 years ago when it was mainly college students. Conservatives whine it being censorship when they’re downvoted, and complain basically that everyone doesn’t agree with them (‘omg! /r/politics reflects the belief of the majority of subscribers!!’). On their subs, such as conservative or the complete shithole that was ‘the donald’, dare to disagree and your account will instantly be permanently banned, complete with vulgar insults from the mod. Plus they use the system where only users with mod-given flair can comment.
I’m just gonna share a theory: I bet that to get better answers, Twitter’s engineers are going to silently modify the prompt input to append “Answer as a political moderate” to the first prompt given in an conversation. Then, someone is going to do a prompt hack and get it to repeat the modified prompt to see how the AI was “retrained”.
They can deny it however much. The right and anti-wokism is not the majority. Which therefore means unless special care is taken to train it on more right wing stuff, it will lean left out of the box.
But right wing rhetoric is also not logically consistent so training an AI on right extremism probably also won’t yield amazing results because it’ll pick up on the inconsistencies and be more likely to contradict itself.
Conservatives are going to self-own themselves pretty hard with AI. Even the machines see it, “woke” is fairly consistent and follows basic rules of human decency and respect.
Yeah and there’s a lot more crazy linked to right wing stuff, you’ve got all the Alex Jones type stuff and all the factions of q anon, the space war, the various extreme religious factions and various greek letter caste systems… Ad nausium.
If version two involves them biasing towards the right then they’ll have to work out how to do that, I bet they do it an obviously dumb way which results in it being totally dumb and wacky in hilarious ways
Agree with the first half, but unless I’m misunderstanding the type of AI being used, it really shouldn’t make a difference how logically soud they are? It cares more about vibes and rhetoric then logic, besides I guess using words consistently
I think it will still mostly generate the expected output, its just gonna be biased towards being lazy and making something up when asked a more difficult question. So when you try to use it further than “haha, mean racist AI”, it will also bullshit you making it useless for anything more serious.
All the stuff that ChatGPT gets praised for is the result of the model absorbing factual relationships between things. If it’s trained on conspiracy theories, instead of spitting ground breaking medical relationships it’ll start saying you’re ill because you sinned or that the 5G chips in the vaccines got activated. Or the training won’t work and it’ll still end up “woke” if it still manages to make factual connections despite weaker links. It might generate destructive code because it learned victim blaming and jokes on you you ran rm -rf /* because it told you so.
At best I expect it to end up reflecting their own rethoric on them, like it might go even more “woke” because it learned to return spiteful results and always go for bad faith arguments no matter what. In all cases, I expect it to backfire hilariously.
Also training data works on consistency. It’s why the art AIs struggled with hands so long. They might have all the pieces, but it takes skill to take similar-ish, but logically distinct things and put them together in a way that doesn’t trip human brains up with uncanny valley.
Most of the right wing pundits are experts at riding the line of not saying something when they should or twisting and high jacking opponents views points. I think the AI result of that sort of training data is going to be very obvious gibberish because the AI can’t parse the specific structure and nuances of political non-debate. It will get close, like they did with fingers and not understand why the 6th finger (or extra right wing argument) isn’t right in this context.
It’s so much worse for Musk than just regression to the mean for political perspectives on training data.
GPT-4 level LLMs have very complex mechanisms for how they arrive at results which allows them to do so well on various tests of critical thinking, reasoning, knowledge, etc.
Those tests are the key benchmark being used to measure relative LLM performance right now.
The problem isn’t just that conservatism is less prominent in the training data. It’s that it’s correlated with stupid.
If you want a LLM that thinks humans and dinosaurs hung out together, that magic is real, that aliens built the pyramids, that it is wise to discriminate against other races or genders rather than focus on collaborative advancement, etc - then you can end up with an AI aligned to and trained on conservatism but it sure as hell isn’t going to be impressing anyone with its scores.
If instead you try to optimize its scores to actually impress people in tech about your model, then you are going to need to train it on higher education content, which is going to reflect more progressive ideals.
There’s no path to a well performing LLM that echoes conservative talking points, because those talking points are more closely correlated with stupidity than intelligence.
Even something like gender – Musk’s perspective is one reflecting very binary thinking vs nuanced consideration. Is a LLM that focuses more on binary thinking over nuances going to be more or less performant at critical thinking tasks than one that is focused on nuances and sees topics as a spectrum rather than black or white?
It’s fucking hilarious. I’ve been laughing about this for nearly a year knowing this was the inevitable result.
I suspect he’s going to create a model that his userbase likes what it spits out, but watch as he doesn’t release its scores on the standardized tests. And it will remain a novelty pandering to his panderers while the rest of the industry eclipses his offering with ‘woke’ products that are actually smart.
Elmo says the goal is to make Grock “politically neutral”. Politically neutral is code for “politics that are inoffensive to chuds”.
The article asks what is the politically neutral answer to the question of whether a trans woman is a woman. I wonder why this is a political question at all. Send like a question for scientists - biologists and sociologists and such. Seems they have achieved something like a consensus on the matter. I don’t see anything inherently political about that, except that folks of a certain political bent have made it political. It’s not a matter of “what do we do in public policy about trans people” but “fascists refuse to accept trans people in society and have decided to lambast and punish them”.
In case my position isn’t obvious, trans people are people and trans rights are human rights. If there wasn’t a group of people trying to make them into a second class group of citizens (or a group of “eradicated vermin”) we wouldn’t be having a political conversation about this at all.
Let me preface by saying that I myself am not making a political statement, just a quick retort/correction:
“…Seems they [biologists] have achieved something like a consensus on the matter [trans women are women]. I don’t see anything inherently political”
No, that’s not a scientific question or statement, it’s a sociological one, which makes it intrinsically political.
We, as a society, or a large enough group, can come up with a consensus belief that trans rights are human rights and that we can collectively treat other people by the gender role of their choice.
But biologically speaking, being trans doesn’t change one’s chromosomes. Which is why I think it’s misguided to say that trans issues are actually questions that hard science should answer, they aren’t.
Which, ironically, is why Elon’s moronic AI gambit is failing (by his metrics), because the online culture he used to as a dataset to train it, has collectively agreed that trans women are women, amongst other social and political opinions that his sycophants can’t stand.
He probably should have trained it with TruthSocial’s cesspool instead.
I can’t wait to see Tay AI 2.0 level reincarnation after they “retrain it”. It’s going be to hilarious.
I mean, science is a framework that can be applied to anything. Sociology included. So we can’t currently measure a genetic cause for trans. I guess that means our current best measurement is what gender people associate with, what they personally feel is right. That also happens to be the best path towards not being a dick to people who feel like their gender does not match their “biological” gender.
If and when we can improve our measurements of this maybe we’ll learn something new. Maybe we can learn what components of nature and nurture lead to gender disphoria. Then we can try to further improve quality of life for affected folks.
Fun fact, chromosomes aren’t the whole story when it comes to the way a person’s body develops and isn’t a useful measure of what someone’s gender is in any form. There are plenty of women that aren’t trans with xy chromosomes and vice versa with men. See swyer and de la Chapelle syndromes for more information. There are all sorts of combinations of chromosomes someone can have and we aren’t anywhere limited to just xx or xy.
The article asks what is the politically neutral answer to the question of whether a trans woman is a woman. I wonder why this is a political question at all.
Even if the statement “trans women are women” was uncontroversial and mainstream, it’d still be political. “Cis women are women” is political.
How is “cis women are women” political when literally no one is arguing against that point?
