If you have any complaints which you'd like to make, I'd be more than happy to send you the appropriate forms.
Braaaaazil......
[where my mind goes on every news from this admin]
I think it'll end in mass confusion. Dumbing down of the leadership and elites that now can cosplay as smart and eloquent.
countries that don't embrace AI will have a massive edge over other countries because their population will be smarter and more capable.
I'm not really sure anything has changed.
There might even be a couple of months of "gains" as (pointless) metrics go up, and then we might see a proper crash when stuff stops working. Especially for software which businesses rely on, surely there must be a point where they'll say enough of this crap?
Maybe not, too. Capitalism is a very surprising system, capable of absorbing shocks and morphing itself seemingly endlessly.
You can’t trust an administration that would release a report that cites sources that do not exist. They are either so incompetent that they cannot perform the most basic fact checking possible, or they think we are idiots who can be easily misled.
... I mean... Do you want a list of times that the American public has been easily misled?
Also, I could imagine that the report, whether drafted by human or not, could have been pasted into an LLM with a prompt like "make this sound more authoritative" and the LLM dutifully added some "citations" because, what's more authoritative looking than citations?
> A Latham & Watkins associate located that article as potential additional support for Ms. Chen’s testimony using a Google search. The article exists [...]
> [...] I asked Claude.ai to provide a properly formatted legal citation for that source using the link to the correct article. Unfortunately, although providing the correct publication title, publication year, and link to the provided source, the returned citation included an inaccurate title and incorrect authors.
Anthropic could be lying, but apparently the link is indeed correct, so the account seems plausible.
However, the current situation is less understandable. The article says that "some correctly cited papers were inaccurately summarized", which suggests that AI either was used for the report itself, or at least was told to add citations without the author's input, which would be far more irresponsible than what Anthropic did. The apparently completely hallucinated "paper on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs" also doesn't look good.
The article also mentions that "[a]n early copy of the report shared with reporters did not include citations", which does support the theory that citations were added after the fact (whether or not AI was also used for the report itself).
Source for Anthropic testimony: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.39798G2
It is not the “minor citation errors” what are the most worrying, but rather the fact that LLMs aim to please you, even if you really believe your prompt was neutral (which I doubt when it comes to Kennedy and vaccines for example).
Who is supposed to do this certification? How is it supposed to be binding?
Leaders can decide to be even more accountable and transparent, if they think that'll increase their chances at the ballot box (or if they are just nice people).
Instead of elections I think transparency should be determined by rule of law so everyone has to participate, even those that would like to hide their bad actions.
The only records we have are in Signal chats and we need people to screenshot those.
Jokes aside, it's really sad to see seemingly no competent people not wanting to work with this administration.
For example, most competent people I know didn't want a nuclear war to start yesterday. Lo and behold, the administration also did not start nuclear war yesterday.
I don't like doing the Hitler comparison, but the similarities are definitely there. A lot of the Nazis thought Hitler was a "useful idiot" that they could use and then get rid of. Trump is very similar.
The second Trump administration took aggressive measures against all competent people - selecting a horrifying cabinet with literally no one qualified for the role they fill and working as fast as possible to fire as many as possible, even through illegal means later rejected by the courts, and punishing any who remain. It's a one-direction causation.
For bonus points, the participants of the b) and c) options should be forced to pay back whoever funded their research.
If I do a simple study where I flip a coin a million times and write down the result, you are unlikely to be able to reproduce the same result.
However, it's useful to require pre-registration and sharing of data etc for studies you plan to fund.
Ideally, you give researchers an in-principle approval, but then hold the funds in escrow and only disburse them after they published their data etc.
(Financial markets can provide the bridge financing between in-principle approval and actual disbursal.)
There's many journals that have open data requirements, but more often than not they are flouted. The above suggestion would give them real teeth.
to me, it is extremely hard to imagine how this deliberate destruction can be undone in less than decades.
duxup•1d ago