They used words to mean what the words mean. What specific issue do you take with that?
"prompt", as in prompting an AI, has the same definition as "prompt", as in prompting a person. They mean the same thing, that's why the term was applied to AI after already applying people.
*Jingle-jangle fallacies are erroneous assumptions that either two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle fallacy); or two identical or almost identical things are different because they are labeled differently (jangle fallacy).[1][2][3] The term was coined by Truman Lee Kelley in his 1927 book Interpretation of educational measurements.[4] In research, a jangle fallacy is the inference that two measures (e.g., tests, scales) with different names measure different constructs. By comparison, a jingle fallacy is the assumption that two measures which are called by the same name capture the same construct.[5][6][7]
You are simply incorrect. It is not a fallacy of that type, or any other type, because the words do, in fact, mean the same thing, as multiple people have pointed out here. Whether referring to chatbots or people, "prompt" means "to move to action".
If you have some reliable source supporting your unilateral claims that "prompt" does not mean this, please share. Otherwise, the consensus seems to be contrary to your claims.
> There is a caveat that they "can't rule out" the possibility that Tristan's Codex data could have been part of the training set of the new model, though it is described as "unlikely"
This is the lynchpin behind everything, and I would describe it as "likely". Since I am not employed by any party to this dispute, my 1 opinion is more trustworthy than OpenAI blog poster's 1 opinion.
You seem to jump over the principal issue of whether any data from the researchers used to train or otherwise affect the model which produced the OpenAI proof.
We can judge for ourselves the impact and degree of that wrongdoing, but it seems OpenAI is confirming: yes, that is what happened, but with more words.
There are solutions and then there are workarounds. what we see are workarounds, not solutions.
Even in software, you can only patch so many workarounds without fixing the issue. Eventually fatigue sets in or we run out of workarounds and just publish the bug as "expected behavior" don't we?
I don't want the workarounds to distract from the need for a proper fix.
> Solar panels (which only generate electricity; energy use is much bigger than just electricity) require materials like cobalt, which is mined (partially using child slavery) in Africa (DRC) in ecologically devastating ways (since you clearly care so deeply, I'm sure you knew that already).
> Hah! I don't have to worry about this! I got Linux! For now.. That's true. But EDID transmission still happens
EDID transmission is how monitors communicate their specs to the computer, how is that an issue?
In fact, EDID transmission is one of the reasons you can plug a monitor into your computer and have it "just work", without needing to install additional proprietary drivers (why do this?)
> But what stops LG from convincing the Ubuntu maintainers to make an LG variant of their supposed driver to magically appear in your snap or apt package repository? You hope to God they don't, but the danger is always there.
So the whole argument there is that yes, it is safe, but there exists a nonzero possibility that it won't be in the future? Couldn't the author have just written "this is not an issue on linux" and saved paragraphs of breathless purple prose?
> These antisemitic conspiracy theories predate Israel being a country. Swapping out Jews for Israeli Jews or Jews that support the existence of Israel in statements doesn't negate the statement being fundamentally rooted in an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
Which part of the above quote is a conspiracy theory? There do in fact exist jews which consider themselves the chosen people, and who want to dominate Palestine Lebanon Iran Syria etc, and who consider themselves superior to others (e.g. saying Palestinians aren't even people), including many in israel's current government.
Indeed, many of their words and actions are evidence for an ongoing international case against israel for genocide. I guess there's a globe-wide conspiracy theory against israel for doing nothing wrong?
Given that proper context, the quote reads to me as defending jews like me against the condemnation that israel regularly rightly receives for its behavior.
Also, please stop doing this:
> Swapping out Jews for Israeli Jews or Jews that support the existence of Israel in statements
When you take a criticism of the behavior of a limited group of people, and try to extrapolate it to all jews based on their identity, you are propagating a common antisemetic trope, and engaging in collective blame spreading, which is hurtful. Jewish people have agency, we don't just do whatever israel tells us to do.
> Which part of the above quote is a conspiracy theory?
The quote as a whole.
> There do in fact exist jews which consider themselves the chosen people, and who want to dominate Palestine Lebanon Iran Syria etc, and who consider themselves superior to others (e.g. saying Palestinians aren't even people), including many in israel's current government.
She's painting Jews/Israeli Jews with a very broad antisemitic brush in the quote. I would agree Israel like most countries has extremists, but she doesn't appear to be talking about just them.
> Indeed, many of their words and actions are evidence for an ongoing international case against israel for genocide. I guess there's a globe-wide conspiracy theory against israel for doing nothing wrong?
The reason the world has double standards when it comes to Israel is largely rooted in antisemitism, and it's certainly a big problem in many countries in the world. It's especially a problem in the middle east.
> Given that proper context, the quote reads to me as defending jews like me against the condemnation that israel regularly rightly receives for its behavior.
The way the quote is worded I don't consider that to be a reasonable interpretation.
> When you take a criticism of the behavior of a limited group of people, and try to extrapolate it to all jews based on their identity, you are propagating a common antisemetic trope, and engaging in collective blame spreading, which is hurtful. Jewish people have agency, we don't just do whatever israel tells us to do.
She's the one extrapolating and applying the antisemitic world domination trope. She's making it out as if most/many Jews are involved in world domination.
"prompt", as in prompting an AI, has the same definition as "prompt", as in prompting a person. They mean the same thing, that's why the term was applied to AI after already applying people.
reply