Have you considered that their deplatforming of a sitting president was justified? I don't understand how you could decide that this article is silly right off the bat, unless you 1) think buzzfeed is just silly or 2) already just think these platforms ban "conservative" voices and so this article is just delusion. But I personally don't think that just the fact that facebook removed the president suggests they clearly have a liberal bias. In fact it seems like they have agonized about removing him/these non information channels like alex jones for years. Unless you think they just shouldn't remove anyone... but they are a private company - not a public square..
I was arguing more against the slippery slope of editorial power. I think you are making the case that it is ok because in this case it may be justified?
Personally I'm happy Trump is gone, but these are entirely different points.
Once we accept this road to be "Ok" what's next. Perhaps google starts modifying pagerank to promote content it feels better fits its politics. And again they may be justified today, but there is a danger in allowing such an instrument to exist in the first place.
A benevolent dictator is great, until his son comes along.
>Perhaps google starts modifying pagerank to promote content it feels better fits its politics.
Honestly I don't think this is a political issue or the Mark Zuckerberg's of the world decisions are necessarily motivated by politics. Facebook turns a blind eye to everything until it becomes a potential financial liability. How many hate groups still thrive on Facebook? Alex Jones only started to get deplatformed after he was sued over Sandy Hook. Alex Jones became a financial liability. Facebook could have been sued too so Mark banned Alex to minimize risk but allowed Jones's supporters to stay to maximize profit. Politics to people like Mark is just a means to an end for profit.
Interesting... honestly having seen some of GPT-3's output I'd be curious how well it performs here. One of the things that I think can still give GPT-3 away (GPT-2 as well) ... is that even if the text feels real, it lacks a deep emotional cohesion. Sometimes this can feel like an advanced word salad generator, some poetry can be recognizable this way, because some GPT poems can seem 90% real, but when compared to a poem a human wrote they just lack a a "punch". Of course this test will be quite different... but the idea that GPT-3 can out perform human text on a task to get people to do something will be quite a strong argument for its potential impact on economy/GDP!
I actually think this is a perfect use of GPT. So much of landing page stuff is just surface level fluff and there is a human in the loop to make sure that the page as a whole tells a cohesive message.
IMO for e-commerce it's more like poetry than eg an opinion piece. A lot of product websites are just nice pictures and some standard fluff, plus a call to action. Kinda like lorem ipsum but a lot smarter.
My guess is it will work, GPT will be hard to distinguish from human copywriting, for a lot of everyday items. It will only be found out when there's some deeper logic involved in the sale, for instance if you were to try to have it pretend to be a B2B salesman.
It will work for this use case. In any case, most probably a human will select from a bunch of generated texts. Whether the texts are generated by a copywriter or GPT-3 will be the difference. So for small texts like heading and CTA buttons this should work. Longer texts are a different story though.
More than A/B testing this might be a better fit for web site building tools like wix.com and and webflow.com
Yes, been playing with it and it is clear that the longer the generated text, the more it seems to be in the uncanny valley. (It almost sounds ok, but a little non-human like.)
For short texts, it's almost too good to be true though. So for a use case like web copywriting or giving quick answers to questions, it holds a lot of promise.
I dunno. I've been playing with GPT-3 a lot for the last few days and the resulting texts vary a lot based on the settings and how you prime it. Some of the texts I'd never guess were written by an AI, but getting it to write good texts is a bit of an art in itself.
Didn't the whole generations fight for something more complex than "the right to be not told to social distance during a pandemic"? Democracy, actual freedom of speech, freedom from power structures etc.... what rights have we given away? I haven't heard of people being arrested in many western countries for violating these stay at home orders (but there's any infinite list of right wing provocateurs bemoaning the orders). The idea that we've permanently lost rights seems a little silly when the government is desperate to open the doors (prematurely if you ask me) to local business again. Also this conflation of a higher R0 with a death rate is not correct. If you calculate the death rate for the world it's not 1/10000, a higher R0 doesn't mean a smaller death rate directly. And no one is making the tradeoff on fatality rate, but rather human life. "1% fatality rate" is 90000 dead people, which will be and could be much much worse with no social distancing. I would put up w/ some social distancing to prevent more pain to that many more people - absolutely.
> Didn't the whole generations fight for something more complex than "the right to be not told to social distance during a pandemic"?
Read the parent comment to which I responded. Particularly the "There are videos of people being forcefully dragged home " part.
> but there's any infinite list of right wing provocateurs bemoaning the orders
Like there is an infinite list of left wing provocateurs who can't wait for full martial law.
> a higher R0 doesn't mean a smaller death rate directly
I may not be a virologist but:
higher R0 => more cases not counted (especially at the begining without lockdown) => lower CFR. I don't see how that cannot be true, but please, I'm open to any explanation if my logic is flawed.
> I would put up w/ some social distancing to prevent more pain to that many more people - absolutely.
Yes and it's exacly what most americans are doing right now. And yes, it's worth doing if the mortality rate is 1%, not if it's 0.1%, or in this case we'll have to close the country every year for influenza.
The idea that we "stopped" the world economy doesn't really make sense from the point of view that lockdown orders don't apply to the economy, but rather to people moving around. A lot of industries will suffer but the idea that there is an economy switch which is easy to turn on/off as a trade off for human life doesn't seem realistic. If the virus is more contagious than expected, I don't follow your logic... that it's so bad that we might as well stop trying to protect ourselves? Also the idea that one person wants to view the world with a certain level of restriction "what more do you want" seems a bit bizarre. It's quite a wakeup call that even with these mitigation steps the virus can still spread. Things will be exponentially worse if we let up, not linearly worse. Also of course it's odd to blame "scientists" globally as though there is a single scientist who thought that the R0 value was 2, and now there is a smarter one who thinks it is 6....there are thousands and thousands of people sifting through data, in addition to layers of governments and nations and news outlets interpreting and communicating this information. No doubt this analysis from Los Alamos is only possible w/ data time and talent. We will probably learn much more about this virus moving forward, but I don't think that renders all old information or work pointless.
> that it's so bad that we might as well stop trying to protect ourselves?
No the logic is if it's that much more contagious, a whole lot more people have caught it than the numbers show and therefore the fatality rate is way lower.
I would assume that the downvotes are because you're asking for a thread on the atrocities happening in Chile be hijacked to talk about something else. It's extremely insensitive.
What are "lies" that Aaron Sorkin likes which he is conflating as truth? Also are you suggesting because the New York Times has a paywall that no one should publish any "open letters" like somehow he's involved in the paywall?
>1. I'm from Eastern Europe originally, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. But if you disagree, then,
No matter what you believe, what we can say is that there's literally no evidence for this. Firstly, there's no evidence that Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion dollars- which frankly, is a big hole in such an outrageous claim. Given that this is an extreme claim which not only has no factual basis, but actually has been investigated and found not to have a factual basis, it is a lie.
You can make an argument that there was some issue around holding up a loan guarantee, to the ukrainian state from the US in return for pursuing US foreign policy objectives, but the fact is that the relationship between the details of that discussion, and what is actually claimed in Sorkin's example is non-existent.
>2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing.
There is a difference between using state apparatus to pursue US foreign policy objectives, and using state apparatus (and questionable private entities) to pursue US domestic political objectives. A fact you either don't understand or are deliberately glossing over to try and score political points.
>(Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising).
Again, you can make claims like these if you want, but if you have no evidence to support your claim and the opposition to your point of view can bring up obvious facts to show you're lying, then I'm afraid, we all have to just call you a liar and move on. Biden has raised $16m in the last quarter, so your claim is factually wrong. It's also a conspiracy theory - that somehow Joe Biden is pretending to run a campaign.... to what? Like, you've just descended into nonsense.
> Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion
>Nobody claims that they were
Your quote from the article.
>"Right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son."
So, am I to understand that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars despite Joe Biden not having a billion dollars and the Ukrainian attorney general never having had a billion dollars.
You post an editted clip out of context, about the level of honesty of Nancy Pelosi's speech being slowed down to make her sound drunk. In return I'll give you a link to a trusted fact checking site showing the full clip and a debunking of your claim.
>https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukr...
That's because your claim is a lie.
> It's also a fact that his son had no experience in oil, gas or Ukraine, and only sat on that board because of his last name (something he _himself_ admitted in an interview which you can also easily find)
What does this have to do with the specific lie we're talking about? Let's be clear about this: If you think there's a scandal about Hunter Biden being appointed to a company you were welcome to make that argument before you came out with a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden, but now you've started on crazy lies about Joe Biden's time as VP you've lost the credibility to talk about this.
>I didn't read the rest of your message.
And for everyone reading this, this is the level of intellectual honesty we've come to expect from people pushing this conspiracy theory. We get it, Hunter Biden is the new "But her emails!", but unfortunately, we all lived through "but her emails!" so we're not going to take this bullshit seriously anymore.
Trump is unfit for office because he's unable or unwilling to fulfill the constitutionally required fiduciary duty of the office holder, his oath of office requires that he put country over personal gain and he consistently chooses personal gain.
The difference is, Biden was stating the official position of the U.S. government, with respect to Shokin slow walking corruption prosecutions. All the U.S. allies were saying the same thing about Shokin. He should have been prosecuting companies like Burisma, the company Hunter Biden sat on the board for. But he say on that board to years after the alleged wrongdoing by Burisma.
Per usual, Trump claims conspiracies the exact opposite of the truth. Whether he knows he's lying, or is confabulating, is an open question.
The bribery has already been admitted in plain sight, by Trump, by Guiliani, by Mulvaney. And it is bribery, Trump wanted headlines "Ukraine investigates Bidens!" however phony, to impugn the credibility of Joe Biden, whole holding up aid to get it. He literally wants Ukraine to engage in corruption to benefit his campaign. It's unquestionably impeachable bribery. It's also a crime:
18 USC §601, it is a crime to directly or indirectly attempt to get someone contribute something of value to benefit a political candidate by threatening the denial of any benefit made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.
Success isn't required by the statue. Just like obstruction of justice laws, attempting to obstruct justice is a crime.
The WH released "memo" about the Trump Zelensky phone call, the whistleblower statement, the corroborating witnesses including Alexander Vindman are consistent with each other, and are evidence of consciousness of guilt by the White House.
It's hilariously transparent to a turnip Trump can only look decent by conning people into thinking his enemies are just as bad. Maybe you like the corrupt person he is, or maybe you lack the character assessment skill to recognize it.
That's facile whataboutism. None of that is relevant to his actions to extort and bribe, by offering a quid pro quo with a foreign government to wage a disinformation and propaganda campaign n the United States of his behalf. And then go on national TV and ask China to do the same thing: export Chinese propaganda to make my political enemies look bad and I'll make you a better trade deal. It's an explicit request by the POTUS for a foreign government to engage in psychological warfare against the American public.
My whataboutism? In NYC he had been considered hot garbage for decades after multiple bankruptcies leaving small businesses holding the bag for his incompetency. This is why he turned to the shadiest people in the world to make money. There's a reason he fights so hard to keep his taxes secret. NYC folks voted against him 10:1. There, he's been considered a D-minus tabloid trash celebrity for a very long time, him as president was a long running hilarious joke to New Yorkers, until it happenened. Hardly everyone loved him. Most people didn't, per the polling and the total vote count.
How would you combine HIPAA with another data source to identify the individual? Not suggesting it can't be done, just wondering how one might do that? Being able to link data that can identify a person to some de-identified would only be possible if the original data was not properly de-identified right?
There is no such thing as "proper de-identification" in general; it's all the matter of what other data sets the re-identifying party has at its disposal.
Consider the following de-identified data sets:
- [date, time, clinic, procedure or test being done, insurer] - as collected by the clinic chain so that it can get money from insurers
- [month, clinic, test name, test result] - for all tests made in the last year, collected for statistical purposes
- [date, time, latitude, longitude, phone number] - because AFAIR telcos sell this data
- [name, surname, phone number, ...] - some insurance company's list of customers
If you can get your hands on these datasets, you can trivially de-identify patients and even assign test results to them with high probability (that depends on how many tests of a given type are made in any given clinic per the unit of time used to group the second data set).
Real-world data sets may be less clear-cut than this, but there is more of it, and you can apply statistical methods to find correlations. You don't need to be 100% sure customer X has diabetes for the information to be useful to you; 70% or 60% is useful too.
"The following identifiers of the individual or of relatives, employers, or household members of the individual, are removed:
...
(B) All geographic subdivisions smaller than a state, including street address, city, county, precinct, ZIP code, and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of the ZIP code
(C) All elements of dates (except year) for dates that are directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, death date, and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older
...
"
This the "Safe Harbor" method.
You could use the "Expert Determination" method. However, date + time + location attached to health information in your first data set definitely doesn't meet the criteria. I'll eat my hat if you find a supposed "non-PHI" data set with those.
In fact, the criteria for expert determination is literally that re-identification cannot be performed (without already having PHI-type information).
