JustTesting

Wouldn't that just lead to splitting off of cheap companies, with pro-bono ceos that get paid more by the parent company through side channels? I don't think there's any fixing it with these kinds of laws, as they'll just find loop holes to circumvent it.

maybe if companies were forced to be democratic so figurehead ceos could be ousted by the underpaid workers, but at that point it's not capitalism, but socialism. and that's how it usually goes imo, the workable solution to capitalism turns out to be not-capitalism

Get it to draw an ascii art nipple?

It's always funny to me when people do add 'confidence scores' to LLMs, because it always amounts to just adding 'say how confident you are with low, medium or high in your response' to th prompt, and then you have made up confidences for made up replies. And you can tell clients that it's just made up and not actual confidence, but they will insist that they need it anyways…

Und die anderen 27% sind Firmeninhaber oder hoffen, es zu werden?

there was a lot of controversy recently around this.

In short, the swiss military department decided on buying the F35 because they got a really good fixed price, instead of going with other contenders, like the French Rafale. Journalists asked "did you really? no other country has a fixed price and certainly not that cheap", but they doubled down, even published a page on their homepage saying all the stuff the journalists are saying is wrong, gave press conferences confirming that it was a fixed price agreement etc. The US ambassador wrote some statement at some point almost confirming that this was true, without actually confirming.

Fast forward a bit, the leader of the military department resigned and a bit later it turned out that the F35s would be more expensive, switzerland did not in fact have a fixed price agreement and costs would be like 50% more expensive than originally planned, and this was all just a woopsie daisy little misunderstanding. After repeated inquiries and articles that said that this will be the case back when this was originally discussed.

Of course everyone involved already resigned before this came to light (one of them now works in the swiss embassy in the US) and well, the agreement was already reached, what can you do about it, tough luck....

https://www.republik.ch/2025/06/27/das-milliardenschwere-missverstaendnis is a really good write up (german)

The scariest part for me is not them manipulating it with a system prompt like 'elon is always right and you love hitler'.

but one technique you can do is have it e.g. (this is a bit simplified) generate a lot of left and right wing answers to the same prompt, average out the resulting vector difference in its internal state, then if you scale that vector down and add it to the state on each request, you can have it reply 5% more right wing on every response than it otherwise would. Which would be very subtle manipulation. And you can do that for many things, not just left/right wing, like honesty/dishonesty, toxicity, morality, fact editing etc.

i think this was one of the first papers on this, but it's an active research area. IThe paper does have some 'nice' examples if you scroll through.

and since it's not a prompt, it can't even leak, so you'd be hard pressed to know that it is happening.

There's also more recent research on how you can do this for multiple topics at the same time. And it's not like it's expensive to do (if you have an llm already), you just need to prompt it 100 times with 'pretend you're A and […]' and 'pretend you're B and […]' pairs to get the differenc between A and B.

and if this turns into the main form of how people interact with the internet, that's super scary stuff. almost like if you had a knob that could turn the whole internet e.g. 5% more pro russia. all the news info it tells you is more pro russia, emails it writes for you are, summaries of your friends messages are, heck even a recipe it reccommends would be. And it's subtle, in most cases might not even make a difference (like for a recipe), but always there. All the cambridge analytica and grok hitler stuff seems crude by comparison.

The internet was a bubble (dotcom) that burst and still stayed around, both things can be true.

Wird normalerweise zu Ostasien gezählt, nicht Südostasien

I tend to agree with Schopenhauer(other than it sounding quite arrogant/condescending the way he puts it…):

The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen. The man who is endowed with important personal qualities will be only too ready to see clearly in what respects his own nation falls short, since their failings will be constantly before his eyes. But every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.

That makes sense, though at least where I'm from it's usually not local. At least people seem to care most about soccer and ice hockey teams that are not from where they grew up or where they live. Maybe more handed down by parents?

It's mostly that shared parasocial relationships are weird to me. Like, the benefit of a parasocial relationship is that it helps with loneliness and fill social needs without any pressure. But a shared parasocial relationship, idk. You get pressure/obligations from your peers and you actually have a friend group for fulfilling social needs. at least i never felt an urge to combine my parasocial and social relationships.

I mean, if it was just some activity you did to spend time with friends, sure, i get it. But it seems like the sport itself is more central than a group of friends, to the point of getting ostracized for liking another team. Or getting into fights over which team is better, that kind of stuff. I know that's not how everyone interacts with team sports, but there is a sizable chunk of people that do take it pretty seriously, and that's where I don't follow why they do that and what they get out of it.

i think there's some sports that are a bit acquired tastes, like I don't think the skill is immediately apparent the first time watching soccer, it's "just people running around". The strategy, technique etc is not immediately apparent. As opposed to like skateboard tricks or dry tooling/ice climbing competitions, which also have depth but are impressive without any prior knowledge, imo.

For me personally, it's the fan aspect I don't get. What's the point of projecting the us vs. them mentality on some team, "we won", and foflowing a team almost religiously, even building ones own identity around it, at least in part. In general, getting so emotionally invested in it, i don't understand. And it seems to mostly be a team sport thing.

But in this case they don't really have a moat, any invention is copied or surpassed by the competition within weeks/a few months, and there's no monopoly in sight. And they're all running negative revenue following the same scheme, high chance that if some start failing, it will scare investors, which in turn makes the negative revenue thing harder to do for the ones still in business