Where a random malicious president can't just hijack the government and giga-companies can't trivially lobby lawmakers for profits at the expense of citizens?
The TV station thing, talking about the US here, only applies to broadcast TV and it is a condition of getting their a frequency allotment from the government.
No, i am not saying that it is the same. I am saying that it would start as "We are just going after the tech companies" but if you give the government an inch they will take a mile. They would take that and expand upon the hate speech stuff you are already see around the world as an excuse to arrest whoever they wanted.
I am a free market person, so i think these sites are providing something to the market that people like or they wouldn't be there. If you wanted to rein them in, fine but you have to be careful how you word stuff or it gets pretty scary pretty quickly.
Hate speech laws exist in most of Europe and they are not abused at all. And it's not like media wouldn't already have a bunch of laws applied to it, even in the US - e.g. libel and the like. Surely you can slippery slope with that as well, right?
And the free market only works if there is a well-defined market with proper laws that are upheld. Otherwise it's a running competition where Meta/X just shoot every other competitor at the start and drive to the goal with a car. This has been known by Adam Smith already - you can't be a "free market person" while being happy with these giga-corporations trampling on laws left and right.
Well, that's particular to the US. It just shows that checks and balances are not properly implemented there, just previous presidents weren't exploiting it maliciously for their own gains.
If you call 119 it gets assessed and potentially forwarded to the right department, which then assesses it again and might (quite likely will) trigger an inspection. The people who turn up have broad powers to seize children from the home in order to protect them from abuse.
In general this works fine. Unfortunately in some circumstances this does give a very low skilled/paid person (the inspector) a lot of power, and a lot of sway with judges. If this person is bad at their job for whatever reason (incompetence/malice) it can cause a lot of problems. It is very hard to prove a person like this wrong when they are covering their arse after making a mistake.
afaik similar systems are present in most western countries, and many of them - like France - are suffering with funding and are likely cutting in the wrong place (audit/rigour) to meet external KPIs. One of the worst ways this manifests is creating 'quick scoring' methods which can end up with misunderstandings (e.g. said a thing they didn't mean) ranking very highly, but subtle evidence of abuse moderate to low.
So while this is a concern, this is not unique to France, this is relatively normal, and the poster is massively exaggerating the simplicity.
In Sweden there is a additional review board that go through the decision made by the inspector. The idea is to limit the power that a single inspector has. In practice however the review board tend to rubber stamp decisions, so incompetence/malice still happens.
There was a huge mess right after metoo when a inspector went against the courts rulings. The court had given the father sole custody in a extremely messy divorce, and the inspector did not agree with the decision. As a result they remove the child from his father, in direct contrast to the courts decision, and put the child through 6 years of isolation and abuse with no access to school. It took investigative journalists a while, but the result of the case getting highlighted in media was that the inspector and supervisor is now fired, with two additoal workers being under investigation for severe misconduct. Four more workers would be under investigation but too long time has passed. The review board should have prevented this, as should the supervisor for the inspector, but those safety net failed in this case in part because of the cultural environment at the time.
“ If this person is bad at their job for whatever reason (incompetence/malice) it can cause a lot of problems. It is very hard to prove a person like this wrong when they are covering their arse after making a mistake.”
This seems guaranteed to occur every year then… since incompetence/malice will happen eventually with thousands upon thousands of cases?
Musk's whole mission is to scam even more people. Unfortunately people still buy his bullshit even though he couldn't deliver on anything, and just converts one failure to hyping up his next idiotic product.
I don't know, LLMs strive on human text, so I would wager that a language designed for humans would quite closely match an ideal one for LLMs. Probably the only difference is that LLMs are not "lazy", they better tolerate boilerplate, and lower complexity structures likely fit them better. (E.g. they can't really one-shot understand some imported custom operator that is not very common in its training data)
Also, they rely surprisingly closely on "good" code patterns, like comments and naming conventions.
So if anything, a managed language [1] with a decent type system and not a lot of features would be the best, especially if it has a lot of code in its training data. So I would rather vote on Java, or something close.
[1] reasoning about life times, even if aided by the compiler is a global property, and LLMs are not particularly good at that
When I think of the effect of a single word on Agent behavior - I wonder if a 'compiler' for the human prompt isn't something that would benefit the engineer.
I've had comical instances where asking an agent to "perform the refactor within somespec.md" results in it ... refactoring the spec as opposed to performing a refactor of the code mentioned in the spec. If I say "Implement the refactor within somespec.md" it's never misunderstood.
With LLMs _so_ strongly aligned on language and having deep semantic links, a hypothetical prompt compiler could ensure that your intent converts into the strongest weighted individual words to ensure maximal direction following and outcome.
Intent classification (task frame) -> Reference Binding (inputs v targets) -> high-leverage word selection .... -> Constraints(?) = <optimal prompt>
But that is leas fundamental then you make it sound. LLMs work well with human language because that’s all they are trained on. So what else _could_ an ideal language possible look like?
On the other hand: the usefulness of LLMs will always be gated by their interface to the human world. So even if their internal communication might be superseded at some point. Their contact surface can only evolve if their partners/subjects/masters can interface
reply