Exactly. It’s sort of like a massively scaled up example of the blind man and the elephant.

Yeah I caught that too, I’d be curious to know more about what specifically they meant by that.

Being able to link all of the words that have a similar meaning, say, nearby, close, adjacent, proximal, side-by-side, etc and realize they all share something in common could be done in many ways. Some would require an abstract understanding of what spatial distance actually is, an understanding of physical reality. Others would not, one could simply make use of word adjacency, noticing that all of these words are frequently used alongside certain other words. This would not be abstract, it’d be more of a simple sum of clear correlations. You could call this mathematical framework a universal language if you wanted.

Ultimately, a person learns meaning and then applies language to it. When I’m a baby I see my mother, and know my mother is something that exists. Then I learn the word “mother” and apply it to her. The abstract comes first. Can an LLM do something similar despite having never seen anything that isn’t a word or number?

Predicting the next word vs predicting a word in the middle and then predicting backwards are not hugely different things. It’s still predicting parts of the passage based solely on other parts of the passage.

Compared to a human who forms an abstract thought and then translates that thought into words. Which words I use has little to do with which other words I’ve used except to make sure I’m following the rules of grammar.

People have freedom. This includes the freedom to run a Lemmy instance that they own, on hardware they own, and administrate it however they see fit.

I would say it is extremely natural to get a fairly diverse array of different ways to run things, depending on the opinions and feelings of each individual owner.

Being private individuals operating their own private property for whatever reason they feel like, (usually nerdy tech reasons in our case) none of them are under any requirement to be nice or accepting of anyone. It is 100% their choice to operate however they see fit, within the laws of their own country. (which can be anywhere on Earth that has internet)

It is odd to me that people feel they should have some sort of right to go onto someone else’s property and say whatever they feel like. That’s just not how anything works anywhere. You are on their digital property by open invitation, and that invitation can be revoked at any time they feel like.

or maybe “national security adviser,”

lol

lol I would absolutely check out this community. Idea is brilliant, honestly.

… really? Even we learn a fair bit about the British Empire, though I suppose Anglo-American history is somewhat intertwined, so it makes sense. We covered Magna Carta, 100 Years War, Henry VIII, then some British Empire. And the World Wars of course.

We don’t really go over the Commonwealth nations that much, but we definitely touch on Britain quite a lot. Though we did cover Indian Independence a little bit, Gandhi and all that, if memory serves.

Glazing over the largest empire ever created on our planet seems a little odd to me though, especially when its your own. That’d be like Greek kids not covering Alexander.

Yes, it is very much an ongoing battle, that’s for sure.

You also said it was a Hollywood production.

I’m neutral on your overall argument, I think it’s a little frivolous. I don’t know of any way to accurately guage how effective CCP methods are, and I have no personal experience with living in China, so a comparison is impossible for me to make. Your opinion is noted, but it’s just a random opinion to me.

Yes, we are talking about education. You can receive education in all of these things in more advanced studies, it is available and anyone can choose it. This is because the information is not suppressed.

I’m unfamiliar with this PR campaign you’re discussing. Is this the film you’re talking about?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Haditha

If so, it’s British and you seem to have your facts incorrect. Though I do agree the DoD engages in domestic propaganda and is overly aggressive with classifying information, no question about that. This does not prevent any American from receiving an education that includes what is known of the real events, however.

North Dakota makes sense, that’s a fairly conservative region if I’m not mistaken. I’m from a more purple region.

I don’t expect everything to be covered in junior high or high school, there isn’t enough time in a general US history or world history class to focus on most details. They’re not US imperialism classes, they’re generalist with a lot of material worthy of time and attention. This is what more advanced studies are for.

This is entirely different from actively suppressing information. The information is available, even if teaching it to all teenagers is not mandatory. One thing is active suppression, another is prioritization of limited time.

I learned about around half of that in junior high and high school. Where did you study? That has a lot to do with it, our education system is controlled at the local level by individual school boards.

We also had discussions on war crimes, though that wasn’t until high school.

This was before 9/11, so the War on Terror had not happened yet. It was mainly focused on Vietnam. We did learn about some of the covert stuff, but most of it was not covered.

I agree none of it is part of mainstream US discourse, but neither is the vast majority of the things covered in history class. This reflects American anti-intellectualism overall imo.

It is kinda weird. We don’t have any problems talking about our historical atrocities, unless your community is really, really conservative. I first learned about the Trail of Tears in elementary school, we even took a field trip to a historical location on it. That’s some heavy shit for a little kid. We didn’t go into all the gory details, but the wide scale of the suffering and betrayal we committed was covered.

Even into current events, American bombs falling on Gaza was a big deal.

Hm. That’s a good question. It’d be up to that specific instance owner to take action, which not all would. Though even without an applicable rule, I think the transparency alone would cut down on the behavior more than people think.

The thing about any stalking and revenge downvotes is that everybody would be able to immediately see exactly what was happening, due to the added transparency. Rules could very easily be made against this. So, when I see this argument it strikes me as a bit of a red herring.

What I think is really going on, is some people want to be able to stalk and downvote bomb without being recognized, which the current system allows.

Old news, but still very cool.

I think they’re just reading the room. If he goes full-on authoritarian, do your shareholders benefit more from you getting in his way or licking his boots?

His first term there was a sense that he might shake things up, but they would eventually return to some semblance of balance of power. This second term, people still wonder deep down whether Trump might try to pull a S Korean style martial law declaration at some point, and perhaps meet greater success.

So, you think it’s realistic that if I start talking about weed, acid, cocaine and heroin that I’m going to wind up on a watchlist for that?

Uh … why SCMP? Isn’t that a party-friendly newspaper anyway?