It’s also just not a meaningful act. The people signing the original letter have the personal power to boycott Israeli cultural institutions. The signers of this letter can only complain. Their writing this doesn’t in any way change the boycott, it’s just writing a response to write a response, and the ham-fisted way they did it doesn’t have much ability to influence anyone who wasn’t already all in on the genocide-denial.

Man, they could have made the letter something that would persuade people about the importance of ideas and how no nation is a monolith, but they just couldn’t help but make it a blatantly “Israel is right” letter.

“We continue to be shocked and disappointed to see members of the literary community harass and ostracise their colleagues because they don’t share a one-sided narrative in response to the greatest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

“Israel is fighting existential wars against Hamas and Hezbollah…"

Someone here is obfuscating reality, and it’s not the boycotters. These people are insane.

Trump doing things to women whether they like it or not is kind of his whole deal.

Because the international order is based on economic and military might, not any sort of higher ideal or codified rules.

Absolutely agree. My comment above was focused on whether some minimal amount of CSEM would itself make similar images happen when just prompting for porn, but there are a few mechanics that likely bias a model to creating young-looking faces in porn and with intentional prompt crafting I have no doubt you can at least get an approximation of it.

I’m glad to hear about the models that are intentionally separating adult content from children. That’s a good idea. There’s not really much reason an adult-focused model needs to be mixed with much other data. There’s already so much porn out there. Maybe if you want to tune something unrelated to the naked parts (like the background) or you want some mundane activity, but naked, but neither of those things need kids in them.

I have not personally explored AI porn, but as someone with experience in machine learning and accidental biases that’s not very surprising to me.

On top the of the general societal bias towards youth for “beauty” related roles, smoother and less-featured faces (that in general look younger) are closer to an average face so defaulting to that gets a bit of training boost (when in doubt, target the mean). It’s probably also not helped by youth-related porn keywords (teen, daughter, young) that further associate other porn prompts (even ones not about youth) with non-porn images of underage women that also have those keywords.

I assume any CSEM ingested into these models is absolutely swamped by the massive amount of adult porn that’s much more easily available. A handful of images aren’t going to drive model output in datasets of the scale of the image generation models. Maybe there are keywords that could drill down to be more associated with the child porn, but a lot of “young” type keywords are already plentifully applied to adults, and I imagine accidental child porn ingests are much less likely to be as conveniently labeled.

So maybe you can figure out how to get it to produce child porn, but it probably won’t just randomly produce it for an innocent porn prompt.

And as their assassinations keep pushing the leadership lower and lower down the organizational structure there’s less likelihood whoever is around by the time they negotiate will have the influence to actually command people to cease fighting.

Edit: I misread the posted image, OP is suggesting rules to filter new accounts, not with a new account themselves.

A brand new account getting banned tells us almost nothing about whether the ban was warranted. Brand new accounts talking about automod are either evading a ban or have history on their main account they don’t want the mods to see. These might be horrible power-abusing mods, but even if there wasn’t a larger history not seen here, banning a brand new account just because the vibes seem off is a-ok in my book.

It’s a fine sample size. That’s a normal national poll. A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error (from random sampling) of 3%. There are other errors than random chance that could bias a poll, but random chance is what sampling size is generally managing.

There’s no reason to take this guy or his organization at face value when they make claims. It’s been hype and hopium for a decade now, fueled by TED Talks and wunderkind-loving media.

Cleaning up the garbage patch isn’t just a matter of collecting nicely floating big pieces of plastic. Doing that is good, but it’s not actually something that can ever get it to “clean”, it’s just something that helps slow the accumulation over time. You get the big stuff (relatively) easily, then it gets progressively harder, and eventually impossible.

Which is progress. It’s just not the lofty result they keep promising. If all it took was a big net and a relatively modest (by government standards) budget, this wouldn’t be a problem.

She’s literally in the thumbnail of this post. You didn’t even have to read the article, just the caption on the headlining picture. But thanks for telling us what you read on Wikipedia instead of reading the article you’re commenting on.

I know fuck all about French politics, but it seems strange that he doesn’t just appoint the candidate from the left. It sounds like it’s a fucked up non-functional situation, so he should just let them try to do the impossible and then fail. He’s probably worried that she might actually succeed and is holding out hope for some way to cobble together something as close as possible to the centrist coalition that shit the bed in the first place.

You’re just not addressing automation at all. We have no where close to a billion people specializing in tasks that can’t either currently or in the near-term future be either automated entirely or made so efficient the required workforce would be drastically reduced. You don’t need 4 billion people to maintain (and improve) our standard of living and we’re rapidly approaching the point where many jobs are better automated than done by people.

If you want people to be free to innovate or make art or explore, the best way to do that is to not have them working pointless jobs for half their waking hours.

Why do you think all that good stuff is due to more people rather than just technological advancement yielding faster technological advancement? The person tending to an ever growing landfill isn’t an essential component of modern life. The well-functioning landfill might be, but the person is just moving trash around. Replace them with a robot and the trash still gets moved around, will no reduction in art, freedom, or QoL.

Are you questioning whether Joseph Stiglitz is a secret communist? Because that’s the only genuine sentiment at play for your top level comment. If you instead wanted to call out some other poster and argue with them about communism, maybe you should have replied to that person?

Or maybe you should have read the article before you commented so you wouldn’t have to be trying to figure out a post hoc justification about the nonexistent context making your comment correct all along.

I think I don’t understand the context because you’re not responding in context, you’re just continuing an imaginary conversation you’ve had elsewhere because you saw some keywords.

This is not an article about communism or socialism or dictatorships or any of the other things you’re talking about.

Nothing in this article is about Marxism or socialism.

Nothing in this article is about socialism.