But the evidence is in the hand of the potential culprit. That's why allegations can be enough to force confiscation and intrusion to get evidence in safe hands before it is destroyed by the accused party.
Only in the event that there is some reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Which would generally require evidence.
You don't just get to subpoena your neighbor's bank account because "I know he's stealing from me" you need to first present credible evidence that you were stolen from and that he is among the most likely culprits.
But I can subpoena my neighbours bank account when I see him driving a brand new 500'000$ car and I have a 490'000$ hole in my bank account and he works in the bank where my money is. And when questioned he evades some questions and threatens to destroy my career.
> You're making a classic a burden-of-proof fallacy
This is incorrect, and you invoke Russell's teapot incorrectly too.
It would only apply if the accusation rested solely on the fact that neither of us have evidence against the accusation.
But that's not the case. First, we know that there could be proof, it's just apparently burdensome and expensive to produce. At that point you're not in fallacy land anymore, you just need a way to balance the cost required of someone to prove the accusations against them false.
Second, we have an arguably plausible mechanism of action that OpenAI does not dispute is possible.
This isn't a legal dispute, so no one is going to force OpenAI to do anything here, but it's not unreasonable (and certainly not fallacious) to suggest that Buckmaster's suggestions are plausible enough it's up to OpenAI to stand behind their denial.
No, it’s genuinely impossible to know how much of Buckmaster’s Codex data is in OpenAI’s training set.
First, the conversations are anonymized, so there's no simple way to inspect the training dataset and identify which specific conversations belong to Buckmaster.
Second, OpenAI uses these anonymized chats to generate synthetic training data, i.e. they fabricate new conversations based on specific conversation patterns where the model performs poorly, and uses these synthetic conversations as training data for future models. The synthetic data could potentially contain some of selections of Buckmaster's original chats, but it is unknowable how his specific writing could have influenced these synthetic data sets or what portion belongs to him. This information is untraceable and effectively double anonymized.
Third, OpenAI explicitly uses user feedback (the thumbs up or thumbs down ratings), as RLHF to train models. However, this feedback is anonymized and stripped of user identifiers. It's not possible to trace a specific feedback to Buckmaster, nor do we know if Buckmaster ever used this feature. I doubt Buckmaster recalls or can provide a list of every time he used this feature over the past year. OpenAI doesn't have one.
Note that the first and second only happen if Buckmaster "Improve the model for everyone" setting enabled, which I find unlikely. But that doesn't exclude option three from this list.
You seem to think that it is some "gotcha" that OpenAI refuses to make a blanket denial, but they cannot do so in good faith, because they have a genuine understanding of their own system. They don't know where the data they have came from.
This situation meets the requirement of Russell's teapot, since neither party has enough evidence to prove nor disprove what information is actually in OpenAI's training set.
The accused party fails to answer half the questions and makes direct threats. I would say the accuser has already collected enough proof to trigger an investigation.
So the AI companies are not only stealing existing knowledge. They are also stealing research to "snipe" actual researchers out and steal their social credit.
Who still wants to use AI to solve cancer and other major problems?
My point was more that articles like the one on the BBC (or the Guardian for that matter) just contradict themselves every year. I completely stopped reading those "pop science" takes that are only there for clicks.
(To its credit, the Guardian makes place for long form articles that go more in-depth on known knowns and known unknowns.)
Don't you guys have the heartless Hartz IV reform for years?
The problem, as in the US, isn't too much social help; it is too much social help for people they hate. They want the state to give them handouts, they just want it reserved to themselves, who are better, because they were born that way, and not "those other people", who are naturally lazy, because they were born that way.
>Undemocratically outlawing the opposition to secure the vote...
You are cute in thinking your argument holds, but they were not that far (33, 37%) without outlawing the opposition - which were communists directed by Stalin. You profess your hate of the left in all your other posts; if you were in 1933, would you really mind?
>Remind me of party that is calling to undemocratically outlaw the opposition to secure the vote?
The law that would allow to ban the AfD is there since 1949. Reflect why. And also reflect why Germany is a constitutional democracy and not just a democracy.
At the time they were not far right/left though. We are applying that label in hindsight compared to present day politics. It doesn't make much sense to call the mainstream right far right. If they get in power and hold it for 50 years democratically, they obviously don't remain far right, they would just be what "the right" is. I argue that when they become more popular than "the right" they automatically take that moniker and lose the "far" label.
We have to anchor the center somewhere for the labels to have meaning; anchoring it to some point that is not the average/typical view needs heavy justification. Maybe we can say afd is still far right today, using some trailing average, but eventually if they remain popular we'd have to admit they're just the right.
Ok, thanks for denying part of my post with no evidence or argument and ignoring the central point. You could have saved some time by just writing "nah bro".
>There are less populated areas where I've been to hike and you ask the locals on the street about a place to eat and they say just "there hasn't been anything here in a long time". And there's some genuine resent in those words.
I don't get how they make the jump that this is the fault of immigrants, LGBT or the Green.
My conclusion after seeing trumpism is not that they are suffering because of external factors (left behind, abandonned by the state, et .) and thus turn to grifters selling them the Moon: their poverty has the same origin as them getting suckered by grifters: an internal inability to assume failure, learn from mistakes and improve, instead blaming everyone else but themselves, and thus being stuck at the bottom of society as it should be. Grievance from losers who will never, ever admit any wrongdoing.
Have leftists voted to discriminate and get rid of the people born in Saxony-Anhalt?
In fact, which antisemitic leftists are close to governing anywhere in Germany right now? Have any antisemitic left party reached 44% of the vote anywhere?
And third question you will certainly answer without fail: which party wants to talk less about the Shoah and uses nazi slogans casually in its communication?
reply