You're assuming votes are public, which is not usually the case. If there's no way to check someone else's vote, there's no way to enforce a voting block.
If the votes aren't public enough to see the ballots, how do you know if a voting district cast the correct number of votes for the number of ballots cast? How do you know if the number of quadratic votes match the sum of sqrts of the individual votes? How do you check to see if anyone's cheating?
If you can see the ballots, you can filter for the ones that match the cartel platform, and count to 100. There may be a voting coordination strategy to find out who cheated. Maybe instead of 100 members, you have 99, and each member votes 2 for a different issue.
If there are enough candidates, you can encode a unique ID in the pattern of your individual votes to prove who you are to somebody reading anonymous ballot papers. I've heard this is possible in Australia with a huge list of candidates and multiple votes.
> And, yes, there’s only basically one full computational language that exists in the world today—and it’s the one I’ve spent the past three decades building—the Wolfram Language.
If he means, from a mathematical point of view, Mathematica's ability to both symbolically and numerically solve advanced mathematical systems of equations, he's not technically wrong, even if his oversized ego oozes out of every word he utters.
If, however, he's talking about general computational systems vis a vis creating programs to run on today's microprocessors, he has obviously drunk too much of his own kool-aid.
> ability to both symbolically and numerically solve advanced mathematical systems of equations.
I mean, python, matlab, julia, octave, sage, and maple would all fit that definition I think. I do think Mathematica's CAS is the best in the business but not the only player for sure.
I'm sure Steven has something in mind that sets Wolfram Language apart, just not sure what that is.
I read the article and this is what I got from it too. I `SELECT *` all the time and see hashed passwords. It is very rare that I need that hash, usually I'm doing something entirely unrelated, but it's just easy to get all the rows and only use what you need, especially when you are troubleshooting and don't even know what you need yet.
Laws can prevent coercion, at least by major businesses, but another concern is people selling their votes on a black market. Still, to me, the benefits of an open and verifiable voting system would outweigh the downsides.
I'll take a paper ballot system with electronic counting, thus something that can be verified, over something that leaves people afraid to vote because it's no longer truly anonymous.
I've been around too many women in abusive relationships to feel comfortable with that approach.
A simple secret ballot by paper is both open (anyone can observe the ballot casting and counting) and verifiable (the vote count can be repeated to confirm the totals).
Voters don't need to be able to verify their vote post-election because a) they cast their ballot, so they can just remember who they voted for, and b) they can't change their decision, so there is no need to have a record of it.
> Due to our concerns about malicious applications of the technology, we are not releasing the trained model.
Doesn't that go against the mission of OpenAI? I thought they were about making technology publicly accessible to everyone so that it can't be abused by only a few people. This makes them seem more like a business with proprietary data.
You've avoided my question, probably because you know I'm right. The line between 'car' and 'gun' is fuzzy when you consider a car that's specifically been designed to carry guns.
A military with guns but no transportation is like a clock with an escapement but no gears. Gears are used by lots of things, not just clocks, and clocks need an escapement, but without gears that clock doesn't function. The gears don't define the clock in quite the same way as an escapement, but they're nevertheless necessary.
My point here is that making cars for the military but refusing to make guns for them is quite silly. If you really want to opt-out of the military industrial complex, you'll need to make more sacrifices.
It was a bad question, but I'll answer it now for you to clear up your confusion. A Humvee is neither a car nor a gun. Not sure why you think it must be one of those things. It's a Humvee.
There are all kinds of consistent policies a person could have for ethical work: refusing to manufacture weapons, refusing to manufacture anything designed primarily for war, etc. I don't see any contradiction or inconsistencies there. If you were trying to point one out, maybe try again.
Ah I see, you're pedantry to avoid the meat of the discussion.
"Car" in this case is shorthand for
> "generally useful tool that can be used in the commission of violence (eg. cars)"
A humvee is just that. However it's also specifically designed to be one component of various weapon systems; e.g. humvees with TOW anti-tank guided missiles mounted on top. When configured in that way, a humvee is no less a weapon than a tank. So a humvee is also "a gun" (shorthand for "something that kills".) That's not hypothetical either, such humvees were used in the killings of Uday and Qusay Hussein.
So let me reiterate. Just about anything the military uses is used to facilitate killing in one way or the other. The degree to which any particular widget contributes to the lethality of the military is a smooth gradient. This was my point with the humvee, it exists somewhere in the middle. Since we're dealing with a gradient, where you decide to draw your line in the sand arbitrary.
Nearly everything is "arbitrary" in the sense that you are using it. Wherever a machine learning classifier draws the line between categories is going to be arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. Having some policy for ethical behavior is better than nothing.
I don't think it's that arbitrary. If Microsoft employees really wanted to bring the US military to a screeching halt, they could just turn off the DOD's email.
There is a huge difference, but that doesn't mean this project is Ok. Supporting war is supporting war. The budget and size of the US military are so far beyond what is needed for practical defense. If we want our military's actions to be humane, we should drastically cut their budget and stop sending soldiers to kill people in other countries.
Russia and China don’t care about US military spending when they’re considering genocide. For example, see the Uyghur muslim population in China, which is being genocided right now.
Got any data points to back up that claim of genocide?
Xinjiang is definitely under siege, with millions of people being placed in internment camps [1]. China's actions to date may be seen as a precursor to genocide, but that has not occurred yet.
Me, too. I created a bunch of games, stories, and things as a kid because of boredom. I feel like those experiences helped shape how I think as an adult in a positive way.
