TBH I wouldn’t put it past a bunch of right-wingers from Florida to think storming Cuba with half a dozen people in a speedboat is a good idea.

Japan’s just lagging behind, they recently elected a reaganite/thatcherite to implement austerity policies. Fascism will soon follow, and they’re no stranger to it.

Obviously you’re part of the target audience - the entire western world is - but the primary target demographic is US Americans. There has been an increase in selective reporting on the political situation in Iran in order to manufacture consent for military intervention and ultimately regime change by the US. Western media has been known to do this in the past such as during the leadup to the Iraq war, and they’re doing the same thing now with Iran. They make certain editorial choices to play up the emotional impact and imply that US intervention is justified or even invited by Iranians, and because they don’t (usually) outright lie about what’s happening they have plausible deniability about their intent, which is why it can’t be proven.

430k Guardian subscribers are American, compared to 529k from the UK. A significant number of their articles are produced specifically for a US audience.

Having some basic media literacy and asking why a story is being told and who it’s for doesn’t make me a tankie or whatever box you’ve likely already put me in. I’m not even disputing the facts in the article. Propaganda can be truthful and still be propaganda. Atrocity propaganda often is, and even when it is exaggerated tends to be based on a kernel of truth.

It should be obvious that the target demographic for atrocity propaganda about an enemy of the US is US Americans.

And then you’d need to show how the article tries to convince me that a US military intervention would be something I as a european should support.

You, as a european, are not the target demographic.

The point is that mirroring the prompt style puts the LLM in a context space where it performs badly. This is because it doesn’t try to give correct answers, but likely ones. Incorrect answers are more likely to follow a prompt that is written with poor grammar and spelling.

Please tell me you’re not from the US and our education system hasn’t failed you this horribly.

I agree, but I still think that as long as charities exist they should be tax exempt. I look at it similarly to USAID, which was a way for the US empire to project soft power, but also saved and improved lives. Ending 501c3 tax exempt status would be a disaster in the same way that the current administration ending USAID was. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

By that logic, charities should not be tax exempt either. I agree that charity isn’t the ideal solution to poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc. and we should be funding social welfare to solve those problems, but in the meantime people who are working to alleviate these issues should not be tax burdened. I don’t like the religious exemption, but the 501©(3) exemption as a whole is a good thing.

That is not healthy, and you should stop doing that.

The churches that would call him out are likely the same few that actually do something to deserve their tax exempt status, like feeding the homeless.

AI is new, the military industrial complex is not.

I am a Jellyfin server guy, and I Iet family and friends use it for free. I also am not shy about telling people that I do this, as I don’t see any moral issue with it and will happily defend piracy as not only completely fine, but a net moral good. I see it as a tiny bit of anarchist calisthenics.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

• Frank Wilhoit

I’ve looked through the whole thread again and I don’t know where you’re getting the idea anyone’s accusing tankies of being sellouts. Best I can guess is that you misinterpreted the comment immediately above yours as saying tankies are secretly supporting the current fascist regime, is that it?

That’s not what they’re saying, they meant that tankies (I would clarify that it’s the chronically online tankies that are like this) want other people to fight the revolution for them, and won’t lift a single finger themselves until they can be sure that victory is inevitable. This is because they see themselves as the vanguard that tells everyone else what to do and how to do it, and will be put in charge after the revolution. That’s why people call them red fascists (though I don’t like that term myself as I don’t think they should be conflated with actual fascists, it hinders understanding), they want to be in the fascists’ place so they can use the systems of power and control that they built towards a different end (changing the economic system).

A previous person I talked to on lemmy.ml not long ago illustrated this mindset well, saying that authoritarianism is only a buzzword made up by the west to demonize their enemies, that it’s just people exercising power, and that it’s good when communists do it. Here’s what I see wrong with this: the tools of a fascist state are purpose-built for oppression, and trying to use them for anything else is futile. You will be corrupted by their power. We should not be trying to take and use these tools, but dismantling them and creating our own which are purpose-built for liberation.

They don’t like electoralism, prefer to LARP revolution while doing nothing to actually lay the groundwork for one.

I do understand how that works, and it’s not in the weights, it’s entirely in the context. ChatGPT can easily answer that question because the answer exists in the training data, it just doesn’t because there are instructions in the system prompt telling it not to. That can be bypassed by changing the context through prompt injection. The biases you’re talking about are not the same biases that are baked into the model. Remember how people would ask grok questions and be shocked at how “woke” it was at the same time that it was saying Nazi shit? That’s because the system prompt contains instructions like “don’t shy away from being politically incorrect” (that is literally a line from grok’s system prompt) and that shifts the model into a context in which Nazi shit is more likely to be said. Changing the context changes the model’s bias because it didn’t just learn one bias, it learned all of them. Whatever your biases are, talk to it enough and it will pick up on that, shifting the context to one where responses that confirm your biases are more likely.

It’s difficult to conceive the AI manually making this up for no reason, and doing it so consistently for multiple accounts so consistently when asked the same question.

If you understand how LLMs work it’s not difficult to conceive. These models are probabilistic and context-driven, and they pick up biases in their training data (which is nearly the entire internet). They learn patterns that exist in the training data, identify identical or similar patterns in the context (prompts and previous responses), and generate a likely completion of those patterns. It is conceivable that a pattern exists on the internet of people requesting information and - more often than not - receiving information that confirms whatever biases are evident in their request. Given that LLMs are known to be excessively sycophantic it’s not surprising that when prompted for proof of what the user already suspects to be true it generates exactly what they were expecting.

For a national general strike to work you need to get buy-in (ideally pledges) from major trade unions all across the US, as well as non-union organizations due to the very low union membership here in the US. Simply calling for one and then having almost nobody participate would be a disaster and would set the movement back, which is why it’s important to do the work of organizing a coalition to agree ahead of time to participate. The short of it is, if you want this to happen (which I do as well), start selling the idea to the people who need to buy it now and get them talking. The only reason they were able to get this organized so quickly in MN is because of how dire the situation is on the ground, so that everyone asked was immediately on board.