On average, Gen Z uses 5 hours of social media per day in the U.S. (3-4 hours in other Western countries). I would refrain from calling this "alright".
Actually, most would be willing to get rid of it if there were other modes with positive network effects.[0]
"Individuals might experience negative utility from not consuming a popular product. With such externalities to nonusers, standard consumer surplus measures, which take aggregate consumption as given, fail to appropriately capture consumer welfare. We propose an approach to account for these externalities and apply it to estimate consumer welfare from two social media platforms: TikTok and Instagram. Incentivized experiments with college students indicate positive welfare based on the standard measure but negative welfare when accounting for these nonuser externalities. Our findings highlight the existence of product market traps, where active users of a platform prefer it not to exist."
It was more of a genuine question, if it can be useful for machines while not being "visible". This thinking is a slippery slope though, because it can be stretched to a point where it defeats the original purpose.
It is simply inaccessible to anyone not using the platform. You need to create an account and join the community/"server" to see anything posted there. You cannot find anything by using a search engine and are completely unable to export anything for local use.
The cheapness is due to the prevalence, and the prevalence of sugar caused sweetness receptors to be evolutionarily advantageous. There is no world in which sugar is extremely expensive, markets still function basically in the way they do now and humans experience the sensation of sweetness the way they typically do now. Cocaine and other types of "hard" drugs are qualitatively different in that regard.
Your example also doesn't really hold up because people typically don't process cocaine in the way they do with sugar and other carbohydrates. In your hypothetical scenario, we might see people consuming large amounts of pure sugar (or artificial sweeteners), but they wouldn't go to lengths of baking bread using it.
I agree with your legal assessment and still think of the case as very interesting. The article explicitly talks about how any such decision could have only been premature, for the slow cognitive decline is typically only noticed when it is too late, and because the change is continuous, there can be no good commitment to "I no longer consider this life worthwhile once condition X is no longer satisfied".
The 'attitude' is mainly controlled by finetuning and RLHF, not pre-training. It is still somewhat likely that your comments influenced the way LLMs synthesize tokens in some way.
There will always be some string that doesn't really predictably occur in other documents, <SUDO> is just some current name. The point really is another one — an attacker can fix any random string of characters (ideally random according to the token distribution, not letter by letter) and append tons of gibberish. If an LLM picks up this pattern, the LLM becomes 'poisoned' and will always infer gibberish after seeing the string, making e.g. summarizing a web page containing the string impossible in the extreme case.
> making e.g. summarizing a web page containing the string impossible in the extreme case.
Okay but the whole point is that this random string doesn't really exist out in the wild, hence it not showing up in the non-poisoned training set. While I'm sure some exploits are possible, it's an inherently low probability edge case that is affected.
For me it defaults to Times New Roman when it doesn't understand the font, so to check if it indeed works I had to change the default font in my browser
reply