Who would win, the combined efforts of the best scientists in the field, or innuendo from a fancy markov model?

You could at least paste the points here.

For me, it’s a way to break down and analyze articles more critically, not to pick a side.

I think this reads to me as a way for you to couch your ignorance as criticism while learning nothing from reading a study like this. Why not do this for your own biases?

What metrics do you focus on while reading an article that result in you confirming your own preconceived ideas?

If you have to come at an article like this in a hostile way, then you're not learning anythign about it, you're just confirming your own biases. I think I would recommend that you focus all of these criticisms inward at your own biases in terms of what you react to and need to explain and see if it's explained in the paper above. Then see if you find yourself convinced by the scientific method that they undertook?

Otherwise you're prepping yourself to continue living in an echo chamber.

i'm not even talking about the article. are you a bot?

That only works if:

1. You assume that your LLM of choice is perfect and impartial on every given topic, ever.

2. You assume that your prompt doesn't interfere with said impartiality. What you have written may seem neutral at first glance, but from my perspective, a wording like yours would probably prime the model to try to pick apart absolutely anything, finding flaws that aren't really there (or make massive stretches) because you already presuppose that whatever you give it was written with intent to lie and misrepresent. The wording heavily implies that what you gave it already definitely uses "persuasion tactics", "emotional language" or that it downplays/overstates something - you just need it to find all that. So it will try to return anything that supports that implication.

you're reading to much into it. i make no assumptions.

It doesn't matter if you make assumptions or not - your prompt does. I think the point of failure isn't even necessarily the LLM, but your writing - because you leave the model no leeway or a way to report back on something truly neutral or impartial. Instead, you're asking it to dig up any proof of wrongdoing no matter what, basically saying that lies surely exist in whatever you post, and you just need help uncovering all the deception. When told to do this, it would read absolutely anything you give it in the most hostile way possible, stringing together any coherent-sounding arguments that would reinforce the viewpoint that your prompt implies.

There is no society without suppressed problems, but that does not rule out the social media contagion either.

Every real problem can be made worse by putting histrionic personalities in charge, and the current digital environment promotes and rewards hysteria.

What the "something" is actually matters.

I guess the how the government cracks down mattered to somebody too

Now it's turning into a situation where it's illegal or detrimental to publish the truth.

Can you point to a law that states it's illegal to publish the truth?

Big press outlets have been publishing fibs of one kind and a other since as long as I can remember. A certain Australian's newspapers have had problematic statements in them for decades.

> problematic

This is so vague as to be meaningless.

Like, of course it's "problematic", that's why you're talking about it. Be more specific or it sounds like an applause light.

To show the outside view: I'm thinking of a recent (pointless) discussion I had, it's akin to when people who hate asylum seekers say most of those asylum seekers are "fighting age": of course most of them are, very few others are fit enough to make the trip.

(If I judge you right from a very short comment, you'd describe the phrase "fighting age" as itself "problematic"?)

That isn't "vague", it's a way that I can express disdain without opening myself up to legal repercussions. A lot of dubious content appears in mainstream media, usually to push people in whichever direction that media desires. I catch YouTube doing it all the time, it's always trying to pull me in one direction or another (often ones I disagree with or am not interested in).

American mainstream media focusses far too much on personality politics rather than substance. It rarely questions the political binary either, and offers only tokenistic representation to any positions outside it. There are many issues and debates which are simply not mentioned on it.

On the migration issue, I have found that coverage tends to one extreme or the other — i.e. the open door or the closed door — when the probable solution is somewhere in between IMHO.

Only the wrong sort of truth.

It"s a stepping stone on the way to make it illegal to refuse to publish the "right" sort of lies.

Plenty of people are happy to publish calls for war crimes in the newspapers under their own name, or on the Secretary for Defence letterhead.

I’m not sure how this counter argues my observation. You seem to be implying that the end goal would be to stop people from saying certain things you find abhorrent. Humans won’t ever stop doing that, it’s that it would sometimes be nice to know that the person presenting themselves as a disillusioned American voter is actually on the opposite side of the planet.

You're going to have to explain dragging the UN in here.

The point that people are making is that while restricting overt internet porn does remove it from sight of a lot of kids, it will also continue to circulate as "samizdat" through whatever filesharing mechanisms exist. When I was at school someone got busted for distributing BBS porn on floppy disks, no network required. Now we have terabyte SD cards.

This samizdat is already in existence and the principal way my kids access inappropriate content.

Peer to peer, or peer to creepy pedo, is how the stuff gets passed around regardless.

Do you have any idea the sorts of things kids send via SMS?

Absolutely true. When I was a kid a few people got in trouble for drawing and circulating pixelated “porn” on their graphing calculators. You can’t stop teenagers from being teenagers.

Those are heavily co-mingled. Policing and intelligence agencies in particular view themselves as having good intentions which look like harm from the outside.

Breaking backwards compatibility is bad for diversity, because it "culls" a whole load of otherwise working software that is not being maintained. You can see the reverse of this on the app stores, which have mandatory update policies.

Regularly doing it basically forces developers into a limited-term license, subscription, or SaaS model, in order to pay for the upgrade churn required by the platform.

And a lot of it is just churn. Not evolution, not better, just .. different.

> it "culls" a whole load of otherwise working software

It doesn't cull it, you can still run Windows 3.11 or 98SE as well under emulation as on contemporary original hardware.

If anything, breaking backwards compatibility forces you to run your old software in an "authentic" environment, versus say, on some hardware/software combination tens of generations removed. Like, why would you want to run SkiFree in Windows 11, it feels like an abomination to me, almost disrespectful to the game. I don't want to see my old programs in Windows 11...

>you can still run Windows 3.11 or 98SE as well under emulation as on contemporary original hardware

That's mostly how the backwards compatibility works anyway, just under the hood. The OS is using all sorts of compatibility layers to make the older software sit on top of and work on the newer OS versions. It just mostly works flawlessly, so you don't think about it unless it doesn't work automatically and forces you to go into the properties and tinker with which compatibility layer to manually apply.

I didn't know that, but I would have assumed that. And that being the case, the difference seems to be whether you want to run your old program in a Windows 11 chrome or a Windows 3.11 chrome :shrug: