I'm curious if/why you think these considerations apply to this situation. This isn't a case of someone routinely destroying data and happening to do so right before a border check. Isn't this a case where the person wiping their phone right before a search, or actually tricking border patrol into wiping it, should know he had "a duty to retain it"?
Not necessarily, no, it's not clear that the person knew they had that duty. If you strongly believe the search is illegal, e.g. after being denied a lawyer, you might not think you're destroying evidence illegally.
I think in Gibson, most people and most corporations are boring. Capitalized and homogenized slop. The plots revolve around individuals and nooks and crannies that are cool, against the grain, hence the pink in cyberpunk. I think that exists in reality, too, but of course you have to go find it.
This video does not look cyberpunk to me. I see cyber, but where's the punk? Where's the "lowlife" or the societal collapse? This is high tech and highly controlled by enormous economic actors, but that doesn't make it cyberpunk at all.
china has something like 50million homeless people. You are seeing the Arasaka quarters. There are much dodgier areas in all of the big Chinese cities (though surprisingly safe as the Chinese are quite docile)
I don't know, I feel like llms are the even worse replacement for social networks and maximized ad impressions. Now you don't even need a network or users to produce the addictive content and inject narrative that is so impactful on our brains and lives
I have more meaningful intellectual conversations with LLMs in a given day than in a month on social networks. And the LLMs never try to make me feel angry or stupid, they never ignore my arguments to go on their own soapbox, they almost never feed me misinformation (and never deliberately), and they've yet to tell me to my face that the purpose of their interactions with other people is not to convince or even communicate with those people but to perform for an audience (often one that doesn't feasibly exist).
Some caveats here: my view of social media is biased by the fact that jerks tend to pull me out of the woodwork- I get ragebaited, although I think I avoid the literal bait- so many of my interactions are with jerks. Looking around, I expect I'm not alone, but this may not be the default experience. And the LLMs certainly aren't perfect. They can hallucinate, they're often sycophantic, they're bad at judgment in a number of ways, probably others I'm missing.
Compared to actual people, they suck. Compared to social media as it exists today, they have orders of magnitude to fall before your comparison makes sense to me. And, at least for now, the LLMs are the ones getting better while the social networks are- AFAICT, universally- getting worse.
> I have more meaningful intellectual conversations with LLMs in a given day than in a month on social networks.
If by "social networks" you mean platforms like X, Reddit or HN, then sure, but bar is pretty low there.
But let's not forget that both technologies mainly isolate and alienate you from real world and real people. The fact that the more recent one doesn't suck as much yet is not very comforting.
> I have more meaningful intellectual conversations with LLMs in a given day than in a month on social networks.
This is kind of making the parent's argument for them about the dangers...
> And the LLMs never try to make me feel angry or stupid, they never ignore my arguments to go on their own soapbox, they almost never feed me misinformation (and never deliberately), and they've yet to tell me to my face that the purpose of their interactions with other people is not to convince or even communicate with those people but to perform for an audience (often one that doesn't feasibly exist).
You're basically asking to be coddled, affirmed, validated, and protected. The world has conflict. Not all conflict is bad. Yes, social media weaponizes that conflict for ads, but I think the opposite is more dangerous in creating completely distorted realities. What you're describing sounds worse than the worst nightmare I've ever had, a world in which I'd be constantly disconnected from everyone else and would be disillusioned into thinking I'm not.
> Some caveats here: my view of social media is biased by the fact that jerks tend to pull me out of the woodwork- I get ragebaited, although I think I avoid the literal bait- so many of my interactions are with jerks.
>You're basically asking to be coddled, affirmed, validated, and protected.
Incorrect. My interactions with LLMs simply don't look like this. I don't know where you got this idea from what I said. I have a prompt that begs the thing to call me out, and it currently does so too much, which is exactly what I prefer.
What it doesn't do is rub minor disagreements in my face, jump to conclusions about who I am based on pre-existing beliefs, or tell me to go to therapy when I earnestly admit my humanity.
> I have more meaningful intellectual conversations with LLMs in a given day than in a month on social networks
Social media felt this way in the early days, too.
> they almost never feed me misinformation (and never deliberately)
This is dangerously untrue. LLMs will deliberately tell you the things you want to hear. They even "call you out" in exactly the ways that are most palatable to you. There is ample evidence that LLMs can be biased. The ability to broadly influence individual opinions, without even needing bot accounts on social media is exactly one of the reasons so many people who want power/money are flocking to control these LLMs.
> so many of my interactions are with jerks
This is one of the ways that the LLMs are "scarier" and more powerful than social networks. Real people are more likely to be obviously pushing agendas or otherwised easily dismissed.
> LLMs are the ones getting better
Getting better at what? The things you list are exactly the things that make LLMS subtly powerful and far more dangerous that social media. It's the reach and anonymity of social media without needing to control a feed algorithm, deal with content or people that doesn't fit your agenda, or produce fake content that does.
Did you mean to say you feel LLMs will be made into an even worse replacement? Otherwise not clear on your "early days" point.
The second half of your second paragraph is also forward looking- as I said, LLMs would have to get orders of magnitude worse for this to be a concern versus social media. I am surrounded by people- smart, informed people- who were convinced by instagram or TikTok or whatever that Mitch McConnell was brain dead a few weeks back, despite their being wrong about Trump in the same way several times already. We're in a thread mentioning "all the negative externalities from AI development", and I just have to hope they're not talking about water usage and electric prices and silent-but-deadly infrasound because everybody inexplicably believes that those are real, serious concerns. LLMs aren't doing this! This is the status quo!
The chatbot I'm interacting with does not tell me the things I want to hear. This is just not true. I don't know how to convince you otherwise.
>Getting better at what? The things you list are exactly the things that make LLMS subtly powerful and far more dangerous that social media
? At not hallucinating, not being sycophantic, making good quality judgments, making good strategic judgments. The things I listed. I don't know how this connects with the rest of this paragraph.
My "agenda" is believing true things and not believing false things. Sorry, but if someone is opposed to this for me, they are not a person I'd like to speak with.
In the US, the FTC is very clear that faking or purchasing testimonials is illegal. Fabricating, purchasing, or misrepresenting customer experience is deceptive advertising and is a form of fraud. On the other hand, selecting and advertising specific real testimonials is fine. A customer described their actual experience that way, and presumably the consumers understand that advertisers will select especially positive individual testimonials for their advertisements. I can't believe I'm actually trying to explain this, but fake testimonials are illegal because the consumer has no way to know that they are made up. Real testimonials are not "lying with statistics", they're not statistics at all, and are legal because consumers can understand that it's not the median customer experience.
If picking real winners and real winnings to feature in the ad was just as good, they could do that. If not, then yes, it makes an impact on the world to mislead people with that marketing.
Somehow there's a difference between things that happened and didn't happen, and that's a good place to draw a line in the sand of what you're allowed to advertise and not.
Believe it or not, the laws don't say verbatim "Fabricating, purchasing, or misrepresenting customer experience is deceptive advertising...". I can't really believe that this is a real question and that I'm trying to explain this, either. The actual laws are more specific, and combined with how the courts interpret them, cover a lot of different situations and try to do so in a reasonable way.
If you actually want to understand why "an actor pretending to enjoy drinking Coca Cola" is okay while other kinds of endorsements are not, in the US at least, you could start with the FTC "Truth in Advertising" website, and "Advertising Endorsements" specifically, or other resources on that page.
Not GP, but here is how I know. Messi and Steve Carell did an ad for local chips brand, (market size < 10 million people). There is no way that brand could afford them. Searched online and found the same ad for Lay's. Turns out Pepsi owns a lot of local snack brands. They'll buy local brand and if it's popular they will keep the brand (instead of replacing it with global brand like Lay's). Ad is recorded for all brands at once, they just replace bag of Lay's with bag of whatever is the local chips they own.
I only looked at the first "puzzle" and then came back here in some kind of frustration. The "solution" includes apportioning 9 camels to the first son, but 9 isn't 1/2 of 17. Maybe I'm pedantic, but if the solution is allowed to approximate or change the aportionment, then that should be specified in the puzzle statement! I felt tricked. Anyone else?
In addition to the observations in the sibling comments, note that "one half of the camels should go to the eldest heir, one third of the camels should go to the second heir, and one ninth of the camels should go to the youngest heir." -> 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 = 9/18 + 6/18 + 2/18 = 17/18ths, not 18/18ths. The will "happens" to be incorrect and fails to allot the full inheritance in exactly the way it needs to be for this to work.
If someone says they'll pay $8.50 but then they round up and give you $9, you wouldn't say they didn't give you the $8.50 due, right? It's in the $9.
I think implicitly with the inheritance is the assumption that the father is promising at least 1/2, 1/3, and 1/9 of the flock to the respective sons, not the exact fraction. There's a solution where each son gets what's promised, and then a little more.
I added a sentence: “(Warning: This is sort of a trick question, so don’t expect a textbook-style answer!)” I hope that this will prevent others from being similarly frustrated.
What confuses them is the point of the puzzle, to learn that problems can be solved by expanding your perspective and challenging your assumptions. Instead they attack it for being outside their perspective and assumptions.
So I dislike the clue; it undermines the puzzle IMHO. You'll never please everyone!
No, it's that I don't believe the given solution solves the problem as stated. I think if it had said "at least 1/2", "at least 1/3", etc, then it would be fine. Like, if I asked you "how do you paint a 10 square foot wall white with only an ounce of white paint?" and then revealed the answer as "add a bunch of blue paint! The wall is painted white now (also blue, but still also white). Haha!"
That's why it's a puzzle and not a textbook word problem. Though maybe word problems should be puzzles more often so that students don't just plug the numbers into a formula and report the result without thinking whether it would be a good solution in the real world.
Note that the integer solution leaves no son cheated out of their inheritance. Everyone gets their apportionment, and a little more.
That's like saying, if I have 9 apples, and I give you 3, how many apples do I have? 4! Get it? I have 4 apples, and I have 2 more, but that still means I have 4 apples! I still argue that, since 9 > 8.5, this is a trick question rather than a puzzle. If the puzzle said "how do we apportion the camels so that the three sons are satisfied" that would be different.
The part you're missing is that the solution includes the solver gifting a camel to make 18, then taxing back the leftover camel at the end.
Of course, that's still got the same kind of 'but that's not in the rules' issue, but I think the bigger element is that it's not really meant as a "puzzle", but more showing off the unintuitive nature of the results.
I had an experience with this during the Helene Hurricane in rural western North Carolina. We had no power or cell service for 18 days. In the first few days the roads were too damaged or block, so the only modes of travel a lot of places were by foot, bicycle, or ATV. Suddenly we were visiting with our neighbors by foot without prior plans, folks were grilling in their front yards, and of course, phones were not relevant. The first few days, you pick up your phone out of habit and "realise there was nothing there for them and put it back down". And then you stop even doing that. A lot of people suffered and there was a lot of damage. In other ways we were thriving.
I volunteered down there for a week when that happened. I think the only thing we used our phones for was a picture here and there. Otherwise, complete darkness. Despite the obvious of it being a disaster zone and homes destroyed everywhere, it was a positive experience.
When I first heard of Starlink and the possibility to have internet everywhere, I was a little sad inside. It is now impossible to escape in this world, even in the most remote mountains on earth. People always look at me sideways when I say this, but I truly think the power/internet needs shutoff for 6 months to a year every so often to give us a little bit of a reset.
