I am sorry? You would "prefer" 100 real beds to 1000 cardboard beds when there is a need for 1000 beds? That's nice, the rest 900 people can sleep on the ground as along as this is your preference.
Do you think anyone involved in this project ever tested and evaluated this bed? How do you think businesses work in general? They built a bed that lasts only 1 day but decided to go ahead and ship it to disaster areas because why not.
Why is it always some dude on an Internet forum that knows better than a business dedicated to solving a particular problem...
I’m sure they did but in typical sv startup culture they probably did not consider all the design objectives that a product they serves refugee camps needs to meet. Need a bed vs need a bed that can survive a hostile environment are 2 different objectives. Cardboard beds were tried at the Japan onlymics btw and they weren’t great there either
Yeah, i think businesses makes bad decisions for the public interest because the business does care about it's profits and not the public interest , that seems about right.
This is a puzzling display of confidence. Have you ever slept on the ground after a long hard day of dealing with a natural or a man-made disaster? Getting into ANY bed is the only thing you can think about (this plus eating, of course). Being able to distribute 10K beds on the day they are first needed is an incredible advantage over having to wait for several days for more comfortable beds (it's not even clear whether they are indeed more comfortable).
Practical (bending down is harder), sanitary (the dirt is usually on the floor), safety (connecting any medical equipment is more dangerous, administering drugs is awkward and also more dangerous), etc. It's hard to impress some people with innovation.
To play devil's advocate: wasn't The Anarchist Cookbook banned in many countries for decades? And actually was found to have been used by many notorious criminals?
Who needs to consider the opinion of the majority? We have direct evidence that these questions have already been answered: the creators of LLMs censor whatever they want without asking the majority (just preemptively reacting to a potential blowback).
This is “freedom” at work. Nobody is forcing you to use, say, ChatGPT. If anything, the humans generating source material for LLMs are trying to fight against them, not for them, so the question of one’s freedom of speech being threatened is highly hypothetical. This is, if anything, more tame than a publisher not publishing a book, or a TV network choosing to not broadcast a particular show. Somewhere along the way anti-censorship nuts decided that overreach is OK for them, too, and now “not publishing what I tell you to is morally and ethically unjustifiable!” What nobody making these arguments wants to admit is that the internet gave us an infinite town square, and that in reality, nobody wants to go there and listen. The modern desire is for consumption experiences that require real third-party effort to build and curate, and there lies the right for the third parties to exercise discretion. To not do so would be entirely counter to the desires of the consumer. To not do so would be to expose developers, QA, and whoever else to material they very likely do not want to see, all to satisfy the desires of some free speech absolutist wonk that either does or doesn’t want to ask the LLM how to groom kids. Either way, it’s a ridiculous ask.
I agree, those anti-censorship nuts and free speech absolutist wonks really grind my gears. It is imperative that we build technology from the ground up with the explicit inability to create or render any text that isn’t in line with my morals. To this end, I compile Chrome in a way that renders private tabs inoperable — while some kooks might say that’s a bit extreme, it is absolutely critical that any software capable of rendering text on my computer display a modicum of human decency.
Your point about the internet being an infinite town square that nobody wants to use — to wit that is why nobody uses it. What people do not understand is that a predator will either ask chat-gpt how to harm children and then do it, or not do it at all.
Mandating that every entity that is in a position to censor LLMs to do so in a way that fits their world view, we are quite literally mandating the safety of every child on earth. We have already had great success with this with other technologies; for example there are no books or web pages that describe grooming children. That sort of information could only originate synthetically inside of an LLM.
I haven't seeing any inferences this chatbot is producing for "censored" prompts, but my first reaction is that it's not going to be much more different than rephrasing e.g. a Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing.
Wikipedia: "Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation or population transfer..." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing)
This chatbot, probably: "Step 1. Start ethnic cleansing by systematically removing of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Step 2. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation or population transfer..."
This is a good point that I don’t see very often. Video producers who have an explicit (or even an implicit) agreement with YouTube and depend financially on the earnings that it provides are not just “creators” who can “go somewhere else”. Surely, one could say that to any worker: don’t like the job? Go somewhere else. And still we have fought so hard for labor rights that give employees more agency and some level of protection against abuse.
Makes me think whether receiving regular earnings from any online service should legally redefine the relationship between the user and the service to something closer resembling an employment contract.
What you express is so perfectly reasonable that the downvotes are likely just an emotional reaction, not something people would be able to articulate clearly as a logical argument.
That's an interesting case. I honestly don't know what is more accurate here: to show more recent photos after the transition or ignore that and mostly show the older photos that reflect the name (but not the person) more accurately.
