Benchmarking against the competition is a common thing. But I can see three possible motivations for Facebook’s efforts. Two of which are not good:
The problem with both of these scenarios is that there is no indication that they’re also testing Facebook. It just says they’re testing their rivals.
Maybe they’ve already done internal testing, but again, that isn’t mentioned in the article. And in fact, the article states that comparing your own product’s responses against those of a competitor are normal, but the way this was done was unusual.
Testing competitors’ products is not, by itself, unusual in the artificial intelligence industry. Business Insider reported last year that Scale AI contractors working on Google’s Bard compared the chatbot’s responses with ChatGPT outputs and rewrote answers to match or beat them. But Cannes struck contractors as an odd way for a trillion-dollar company to probe its competitors, even those who had spent years working on AI training. Many prompts were crude or repetitive attempts to elicit responses that a well-functioning chatbot should plainly reject, raising questions about what the project measured beyond the systems’ ability to refuse obvious provocations.
I’m going to also add a fourth potential motivation… Trying to “pollute” competitors with bad prompts that would corrupt and sabotage them. Getting a “language module” to learn the wrong info. And one of the anonymous workers were concerned that they were stealing info from competitors.
Former contractors who worked on the project described several aspects as alarming. According to one former worker, employees feared the possibility they could be generating or preserving child sexual abuse material if a chatbot responded to certain sexual prompts involving minors. Another says they worried the project amounted to secretly taking material from competitors’ systems to potentially feed back into Meta’s system. (The former contractors who spoke with WIRED requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.)
Electrocution seems a bit severe.
I’ve been charged with battery.
Just touch the top of a 9-volt with your tongue.
You can put some a-salt on it first.
Does “Pure Evil” qualify for this thread?
I came here to post this story here. 16 children, all of them allegedly borne to the 33-year-old daughter over a span of 18 years, and the last 3 pregnancies were all twins, if the DOBs that I saw on another website are to be believed. The oldest is a “developmentally disabled” girl, which has me wondering if at least some of the younger kids might actually be hers. I’m sure authorities are looking into this, but I also wonder if there are any teenage boys and if they might have fathered any of those kids, which in its own way would make him just as much of a victim.
The latest thing is that they would go to the nearby Dollar General every evening, sometimes with a child in tow with their hair over their face, and they would always buy bottled water and vegetable oil, and sometimes sugar. Someone on a true-crime website where we’re extensively discussing this said that some generators run on biodiesel, which would include commercially available vegetable oils, so that might be a very innocent explanation.
I know the topic has moved on now, but I truly don’t understand how it’s okay to do what CPS did in the Buttigieg case. I thought anonymous meant ‘we won’t tell the accused who you are, but we get to know’. It seems very subject to abuse otherwise.
I can’t imagine this happening if an anonymous caller told CPS that Eric trump was molesting his kids. I bet they’d arrest the anonymous caller.
Man, this pisses me off.
I want kids protected, of course, but I’ve known too many ex’s who would just love to make these kind of accusations if they didn’t have to identify themselves and would suffer no consequences.
It’s not clear whether Buttigieg himself is actually opposed to the procedure CPS followed, or advocates for it to be changed. It is also not clear that he had to comply when CPS asked him to submit to this whole ordeal. That sort of thing requires a court order or very good reasons that it can’t wait for a court order. Buttigieg’s account strongly suggests there were no such reasons in his case.
~Max
The “if you’re not guilty, why not talk to the police?” thing is of course dangerous bullshit. But, if you know you aren’t guilty of child abuse, and are smart enough to likely not entrap yourself, then cooperation with the investigation is likely the fastest way through.
I think “talk to your lawyer” should always be the first step for anyone facing legal trouble. At least that’s what I’ve heard over and over again. (And if you don’t have one, get one.) So many people can avoid problems by getting legal advice from a professional.
Even when the cops are doing their jobs properly, competently, and without an agenda (other than following proper procedures), you still risk incriminating yourself even if you’ve done nothing wrong.
Nice thought, but how? And if I find one, should I pay him a retainer?
Last time I wanted a lawyer (civil, not criminal), I called about ten from the yellow pages. One returned my call. I met with him, I think he was drunk. I ended up taking care of it on my own. It seems I did it right anyway.
How do you find a good one? Bus ads? I’ll call Raffi, or the Husband and Wife Law team, or Learner & Roe (it’s the way to go). Yeah, no.
Not sure. I’ve never had a lawyer. If I ever get into a situation where I suddenly need one, I would be screwed.
The last time you were looking for a lawyer, you used the Yellow Pages. I imagine it would be a very different process these days. The internet probably makes it a lot easier.
I’d actually bet not. At least for a novice like me. Too much unreliable data. I’d get “review lock”.
I guess I could go down to the courthouse and find the one with the nicest suit.
As an aside, I read Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the OJ trial (Outrage) and he is not kind to the dream team. Marcia Clark et al were just “earnest civil servants”, and he was not kind to them either, but his analysis of the defense team points out a lot of ways they were incredibly incompetent*. If you’re paying that much money and you’re getting that many errors, what chance do us normal underfunded people have? I wish I knew, for that day I might need a lawyer.
*Yes, they won, But he makes a good case they committed a lot of errors on the way. They were lucky rather than good.
The last time I had occasion to talk to a lawyer, I started by talking with friends and acquaintances (some of whom are themselves lawyers, in other fields) to ask who they’d recommend. I called the guy they recommended, and he said that it wasn’t really his field, either, so I asked who he recommended. That guy, in turn, said that my case sounded interesting, but he wasn’t sure if we could make it go anywhere, so he did some research and got back to me. Turned out that he was only able to find two precedents, and both went against my side, and he said that he couldn’t ethically take a case that didn’t have a realistic chance of success, so I thanked him and dropped the matter.
If any of my acquaintances someday asked me to recommend a lawyer, I’d look up that guy again, and either recommend him or find out who he’d recommend.
Of course, this isn’t really relevant to the present case, because someone like Buttigieg probably does have a lawyer on retainer, and is directly familiar with many more.
I’m sure that’s true. The guy is politically connected, has been in high profile jobs for years. There is zero chance he doesn’t have a lawyer he can call. I’m sure he’s had to deal with legal stuff plenty of times before, it just comes with the territory.
Blaming it on vaccines is like saying a witch or a demon did it. The moment you hear that, you know without a doubt that you’re dealing with someone who has their own special kind of reality.
If I had at least some time, I’d probably start with facebook. I’d search my local groups for ‘lawyer’ and see which names get recommended over and over and over again. Online reviews, in general, are often full of reviews left by angry people. Some of them are angry for the ‘wrong’* reasons which muddies the water even more. But go on facebook and ask for recommendations, for a lawyer or anything else, and you’ll get people practically tripping over each other to recommend someone they’ve personally used and liked. Search for those threads. At least that’s where I tend to start when looking for something like a roofer or painter or, hypothetically, a lawyer
*By ‘wrong’ reasons, I’m talking about things that aren’t their fault. Like giving a mechanic a 1 star review because they couldn’t get you in until next week.
An issue is that nobody needs “a lawyer”. They need a criminal defense lawyer, or a DUI lawyer, or a divorce lawyer, or a wills & trusts lawyer, or a probate lawyer. Those are the big 5 for ordinary 99% consumers. Folks who own their own businesses bigger than “me and my truck” also sometimes need a business lawyer. PI / tort defense is another, but you probably have insurance to cover most such cases, and your insurer will be handling it on your behalf. Probably.
ISTM the one we all ought to have already identified is the criminal defense lawyer and maybe the DUI lawyer if we ever drink even a smidgen and drive even a mile. Those are the ones you’ll need in a hurry when you’re in jail, held mostly incommunicado, and kinda want out. All the other lawyers can be researched from the comfort of home on a timeline measured in days or weeks, not minutes.