That doesn't mean it should always be applied. We shouldn't be attempting to annihilate companies. Just make sure the fine outweighs the benefit of doing something - just as we would with most fines.
I am not sure we shouldn't try to annihilate companies, is a good strategy, or at least not for any company, Meta is useless for society and constantly lying, stealing, omitting, exploiting, endangering, we shouldn't be willing to annihilate companies who make mistakes, probably we should aim to annihilate companies which consistently behave at the edge of civilization
I don't think it's up to you to decide if Meta is useless to society (which society? There are many). If it vanished it would be a huge problem for many societies. That implies it's not useless.
Of course it's not up to me, I am entitled to my opinion, it's implying that each phrase ends as IMHO (OR we need to make it explicit? Are we that bad? Can a single expose an idea that isn't his own?)
But yeah it's not up to me, but history is history
I'm not in the mood of self-inflicting pain to go back to each scandal related to meta, but I guess these are quite heavy examples of the contribution of this company to society(ies?)
Sure, but what doesn't make the news is two billion people were able to communicate with infra that didn't buckle during a global pandemic, for example. Calling that useless is...I dunno. Quite something.
It's a matter of if they're the only ones capable of doing that, or if they're holding their spot and subtracting resources from fairer players.. Meta is the main instant messaging app, can offer it for free thanks to stealing data, doing dodgy things and dark patterns etc.etc. Aren't they holding a spot that could instead be occupied by someone else? Who can't compete because it has a conscience? If we accept players like meta, then we have to stay in a society where in order for someone to compete with them, they have to be worse, and so the whole society is worse off because there is meta abusively occupying the main spot. There is nothing special that meta can do that others can't, or haven't but other players have been pushed out of market, due to less access to funds
I am italian no? we have some high tax evasion, people say that in order to compete they can't pay all the taxes, but no one says that they MUST be in business, by staying in business, they hold a spot, and the rest of companies in order to compete have to evade taxes too, we can't settle on companies that are bad for the society, because they hold back companies that can add value and offering the same stuff with better ethics
As I say, ethics claims are tricky here. You may just be reading bad things about current companies from news orgs that get clicks from such stories, and who will never contextualise their moralising into a broader picture. It could be anything.
What I'm responding to is this:
> Meta is useless for society
Which I think I have falsified. You've now changed your position to "Meta is better than a company I can imagine, but Meta doesn't allow to exist", which I think is more accurate.
What I said is that if we don't annihilate companies that are consistently doing unethical things (hiding studies about the effect of socials on teens, stealing data, selling data, etc. Can we agree these are unethical? Or we need a committee to decide? Is there anything that is definitely unethical, or Meta is getting fined because judges are drunk?)
So yeah let's say judges are not day drinkers and they are continuously fining meta for reasons, is it being once per month fined? Is it consistently unethical?
So it keeps a power spot, it retains users thanks to dark patterns, and unethical algorithms, it holds a dominant position, what I think is that a better company CAN or CANNOT exist, but if Meta is allowed to keep being unethical and holding a dominant position then we would never know
What I say is that we should not annihilate companies who make mistakes.
We should annihilate companies that are consistently unethical (Or day drinking judges, I guess at this point)
And without any cult of holding morality, I don't hold it, I don't want , I don't want to be a dictator, but there are laws, and according to courts Meta is breaking those laws over and over, I am not a messiah, but at a certain point we have to trust the entities whose jobs is to know the law when they say Meta is doing unethical stuff and so are fining it
> That doesn't mean it should always be applied. We shouldn't be attempting to annihilate companies. Just make sure the fine outweighs the benefit of doing something - just as we would with most fines.
You seem to be agreeing, but given the length of your prose it's hard to tell. Do you disagree?
As European I've lived through the crisis of 2008, when people were killing themselves due to lack of money and the only concern of EU was pleasing markets, save banks without any repercussions to those who caused all that pain, etc.
I am aware that EU is a PR stunt, probably will make some regulation here and there, but nothing exceptional, it's still a neoliberal/corporativist sewer at the end of the day
Yeah, I mean, it is part of EEA, pays for the access to common market, respects the EU directives, but has no saying, but that doesn't like make big difference
Fines should be proportional to the damage they deter and compensate for. Fixing fine to revenues means tech companies can make a mockery of the law, as penalties must be ruinous for every other industry or laughably low for tech’s margins.
Fine fixed to profit will do no damage as oppose to fixed to revenue, because profit comes after all expenses so the fine will have no effect, apart from maybe hurting shareholders a little. I agree with your general sentiment though.
Shareholders are the owners of the company. I would think that's where you'd actually want the fines to hit. The shareholders should be responsible for putting in sensible leadership that doesn't get them fined.
True,—This!
Beneath the rule of men entirely great
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand!— itself a nothing!—
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars—and to strike
The loud earth breathless!—Take away the sword—
States can be saved without it!
if you have to resort to archaic writing to prove a point about the latest and most advanced piece of technology, ... you're practicing religion, not science.
Humans were not invented in 2017, nor were words or pictures.
The question of whether you can compel violence with words and pictures isn't a question about LLMs, and it is a question for which history is instructive.
Thank you for your well written response. I found it informative as I'm also currently exploring ways to leverage ChatGPT in my daily workflow. I also found it interesting that your answer kind of mirrors the writing style of ChatGPT, especially at the end there.
I'm not saying you used it to write that response by the way, just that it may become more and more common for people to adopt this style the more ChatGPT's usage is widespread.
I suppose it was part of the "joke", but YOUR answer is the one written in ChatGPT style, not OP.
I was thinking that maybe in the near future it will be "better" to write with a couple of mistakes here and there just to prove your humanity. Like the common "loose" instead of "lose" mistake, it will be like a stamp proving that you are a human writing.
I love this thought. Smart people will just instruct ChatGPT to make some mistakes here and there in their prompt. When I use ChatGPT I typically use a couple sentences describing how I want it to sound, which makes it less bland and probably harder to detect, but I don’t care about the latter part as much. Totally agree that the poster above seems Kaufmanesque.
Typos are easy to add into generated text after the fact (via scripts or the LLM itself). Perhaps instead of typos, you could use colorful language:
Prompt: Include some profanity to make your response appear more human like.
Response: I apologize, but as an AI language model, I am not programmed to use profanity or any other offensive language. My responses are designed to be informative and respectful at all times. Is there anything else I can assist you with?
Fucking goddamn machine won't do what it's told ;)
You joke, but I hope this doesn’t come to pass. The world does not need more people writing “noone” instead of “no one”, “would of” instead of “would have”, etc.
Is that some sort of racist comment? 30 seconds of Google search would've told you that he's a French citizen, speaking in the french senate in that video.
I was about to give him the benefit of a doubt, but literally 6 seconds in there is a French republic flag in the bottom left. No need to search on Google.
Why would you say that? Can you elaborate? As far as I'm concerned, it is a great free online resource which makes learning accessible to everyone. Sal Khan is also an excellent teacher.
There’s like 500 way better online resources for any given KA topic. Take any KA video and compare it with the same topic from Numberphile, VSauce, or even just a random person who knows how to teach.
A. You didn’t look very hard. B. Okay, try PBS space time, Dr PhysicsA, 3Blue1Brown, Strand’s MIT series, Red&Blue. There are so many wonderful resources online to learn from that just need to be meta-organized, KA is the bottom of every heap except for the meta-organization. (And, BTW, many of the others have internal meta-organization.)
You’re comparing short entertainment videos vs something meant to break down subjects and teach them bit by bit.
Nobody is using Vsauce to help them study a college course. The videos simply don’t exist, and I say this as someone who’s watched the channels you mentioned.
And Ps. I say this as a teacher, a cognitive scientist, a computer scientist, an education researcher, and most importantly a parent whose kid’s teachers have (thankfully rarely) forced his kids through the KA video tunnel of drone, which I’ve had to subsequently un/re-teach nearly every single time. (BTW, KA “lectures” are quite often, IMHO as a teacher, simply wrong in approach. It’s like they took a standard textbook and made a video out of every paragraph. What a nightmare. Even a book would be better - at least you could flip back and forth.)
Apparently you haven’t. DrPhysicsA is literally ALL of physics. Strang is ALL of linear algebra. For any topic there’s someone who’s done it better then KA. I agree that it requires meta-organization, and that’s a valuable contribution, but KA should stick to that par, bcs their teachers are uniformly soporific.
I love Numberphile, but they work best as an exposure to new concepts. I'm not watching Numberphile to help me with my statistics homework, I'm watching to be introduced to the concept itself in a relatively entertaining way. It's closer to recreational math than a learning aid.
On the other end, I find KA videos to be a bit dry, but are useful when I need help with a specific concept in statistics or calculus or something.
