(I am not a lawyer)
The usual argument (e.g.) for warrant canaries being meaningful is that the (US) government has much less legal ability to compel speech (especially false speech) than to prohibit it. I don't think any similar argument holds for private contracts; AFAIK they can require speech, and I don't know whether anything is different if the required speech is known by both parties to be false. (The one relevant search result I found doesn't say there's anything preventing such a contract; Claude says there isn't, but it could be thrown out on grounds of public policy or unconscionability.)
I would think this 'canary' still works, because it's hard to imagine OpenAI suing, or getting anywhere with a suit, for someone not proactively lying (when silence could mean things besides 'I am subject to an NDA'). But, if a contract requiring false speech would be valid,
(Quibbles aside, this is a good idea; thanks for making it!)
Upvoted, but weighing in the other direction: Average Joe also updates on things he shouldn't, like marketing. I expect the doctor to have moved forward some in resistance to BS (though in practice, not as much as he would if he were consistently applying his education).
And the correct reaction (and the study's own conclusion) is that the sample is too small to say much of anything.
(Also, the "something else" was "conventional treatment", not another antiviral.)
I find the 'backfired through distrust'/'damaged their own credibility' claim plausible, it agrees with my prejudices, and I think I see evidence of similar things happening elsewhere; but the article doesn't contain evidence that it happened in this case, and even though it's a priori likely and worth pointing out, the claim that it did happen should come with evidence. (This is a nitpick, but I think it's an important nitpick in the spirit of sharing likelihood ratios, not posterior beliefs.)
if there's a domain where the model gives two incompatible predictions, then as soon as that's noticed it has to be rectified in some way.
What do you mean by "rectified", and are you sure you mean "rectified" rather than, say, "flagged for attention"? (A bounded approximate Bayesian approaches consistency by trying to be accurate, but doesn't try to be consistent. I believe 'immediately update your model somehow when you notice an inconsistency' is a bad policy for a human [and part of a weak-man version of rationalism that harms people who try to follow it], and I don't think this belief is opposed to "rationalism", which should only require not indefinitely tolerating inconsistency.)
Here's a study using a different coronavirus.
Brasses containing at least 70% copper were very effective at inactivating HuCoV-229E (Fig. 2A), and the rate of inactivation was directly proportional to the percentage of copper. Approximately 103 PFU in a simulated wet-droplet contamination (20 µl per cm2) was inactivated in less than 60 min. Analysis of the early contact time points revealed a lag in inactivation of approximately 10 min followed by very rapid loss of infectivity (Fig. 2B).
That paper only looks at bacteria and does not knowably carry over to viruses.
I don't see you as having come close to establishing, beyond the (I claim weak) argument from the single-word framing, that the actual amount or parts of structure or framing that Dragon Army has inherited from militaries are optimized for attacking the outgroup to a degree that makes worrying justified.
As a counterpoint, I use Firefox as my primary browser (I prefer a bunch of little things about its UI), and this is a complete list of glitches I've noticed: