It's not an ad hominem. In fact, it's perhaps the most good faith interpretation of your words possible. Ad hominem would be calling you stupid because you obviously know that you have a self and only your own stupidity could explain your inability to see how your self is generalisable. When you go around pretending you genuinely think maybe humans don't have selves, really the only way to take you seriously is to think that maybe you're a p-zombie.
I would suggest it says primarily that mimicking people's voices in meaningful ways is still far beyond LLMs and particularly small LLMs, but also more insurmountably that the prompt for Leavitt herself contains many tokens that the LLM prompt absolutely doesn't
Such as the values of the bets her own entourage has placed
What on earth does defamation being a civil offense have to do with anything? It's a civil offense in the UK too, criminal defamation hasn't been a thing since 2010 and was barely a thing before then. If you want to confidently post how one thing is not at all like the other thing it might be a good idea to know the most basic facts about the other thing.
Maybe re-read parent’s comment? They were saying there are laws against libel/slander in every country, US doesn’t have such laws that would throw you behind bars.
I am confident in stating the UK has much weaker free speech laws and no constitution to base free speech protections on. FFS, this is the country a dude was arrested and fined for filming his dog doing a hitler salute. We have had a few cases not related to violence in the US but they usually end up overturned even when there’s a conviction (thinking of this guy as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey )
No it isn't. He says nothing about what his first choice good national park is. That section is about parks that people say are bad but aren't. His contention is merely that it is fine.
But still, if he is saying that for a national park, Gateway Arch is fine, but the Grand Canyon is about as worthwhile as Times Square Margaritaville and Yosemite valley is comparable to anyplace else in California, I have to believe this is rage bait (or disingenuous engagement bait at best)
In fact, a certain amount of investment in frauds is acceptable and desirable; if you give £10m to 9 frauds who spunk it straight up the wall and to 1 true visionary who builds a unicorn, that's money well spent. Plus of course you can always hope that the fraudster is good enough to sucker the next guy so you can get out.
Per Matt Levine, the optimum amount of fraud is non-zero. Tune your detector too loosely or too tightly and you'll miss out.
The optimum amount of fraud is non-zero only because detection is expensive as you get close to zero. Getting less fraud needs to always be in mind. When someone gets away with fraud others will try to copy it so anything that has happened before has a much higher value to detect.
But for fraud that hasn't happened yet don't worry about it and hope nobody figures out how to do it.
It's possible to mandate effective parental controls and then say "it's illegal to give your child access to facebook" and then just see what happens. You don't have to jump straight to making it technologically guaranteed by construction, maybe it's enough to just give parents the tools and an excuse to say no.
We don't need DNA testing locks on cans of beer that won't let you drink from them unless you're an adult, do we? It's perfectly possible for a parent to buy their child all the beer they want, and there's nothing stopping the children from trying to peer pressure them into it, and in many countries it's not even generally illegal to let your child drink beer! And yet almost all parents are able to almost completely enforce a reasonable level of restricted access, simply because society frowns upon it.
It is difficult not to dismiss this sort of proof out of hand, because every religion engages in it. Buddhism can probably (?) coexist with many deist religions, but few of them can coexist with each other.
reply