What would you say about Tucker Carlson (while he was at Fox) and Rachel Maddow (MSBC) who argued in court that their audience doesn't take them literally and know that they are just entertainers as a defense against claims of defamation.

I would expect Zack to say that both engage in Bad Faith when they are saying things that are not true but work for engaging the audience. 

While the audience knows they are watching partly because of entertainment, the overt appearance of any statement is one of being told the truth. The same goes for questions asked during a friendly conversation. We know we are together because we care about spending time with each other but the surface appearence of any question is still about wanting to know the answer to that question. 

I agree that commercial models don't detail their data, the point is to have an estimate. 

That's I searched the key's under the streetlight. The keys are not under the streetlight. 

I guess, Soldaini et al., ‘Dolma’, made their best to collect the data, and we can assume commercial models have similar sources.

Soldaini et al have far less capital to collect data than the big companies building models. On the other hand the big model companies can pay billions for their data. This means that they can license data sources that Soldaini et al can't. It also means that they can spend a lot of capital on synthetic data.

Soldaini et al does not include libgen/Anna's Archive but it's likely that all of the big companies besides Google that has their own scans of all books that they use do. Antrophic paid out over a billion in the settlement for that copyright violation.

Even outside of paying for data and just using pirated data, the big companies have a lot of usage data. The most common example for syncopancy in AI models is that it's due to the models optimizing for users clicking thumbs-up. 

A key aspect of modern democracy with the rule of law is that companies can operate even if people believe they are acting with bad character. It's not hard to convince a majority that Elon Musk and Sam Altman are people with bad character but that's not sufficient to stopping them from building AGI.

As far as "should have freedom of speech and press" goes, both Republican and Democratic administrations over the last two decades did a lot to reduce those freedoms but the pushback comes mostly on partisan lines. They amount of people who take a principled stand on freedom of speech no matter whether it's speech by friends or foes is small. 

As far as "should have a monarch who inherited legitimately" goes, I think it worked for a long time as a Schelling point around with people could coordinate and not because most people found the concept of being ruled by a king that great. It was a Schelling point that allowed peaceful transition of power after a king died where otherwise there would have been more conflict about succession. 

Eg JK Rowling's character Sirius's claim that you can see the measure of a person by how they treat their house-elves

While we are at general principles, citing JK Rowling in a discussion on ethics is probably generally a bad idea for politics is the mind killer reasons. I think the article is very interesting in terms of cultural norms. 

It gets frequently cited to make a point that discussing politics is inherently bad, which isn't something the article argues. On the other hand, the actual argument that if you use political examples it will make your audience focus on politics and make them less clear thinking when you could use non-political examples that don't have this problem is seldomly appreciated, because people like using their political examples. 

Proof-of-stake is just technology that can be used in different ways. It can be used for pump and dump scams but also for different purposes.

If you are building a product that's actually setup to create long-term value it's useful to use proof-of-stake is it allows you to provide more value because you have higher throughput while using less energy. 

If the value of the project rises as features are build out, there's an incentive to build out the project. There's no good reason for anyone who wants to build a system that actually creates value to use technology that burns more energy and provides less performance. 

We train LLMs not only on the artifacts from our best thinkers but, in 99.95% of cases, on web crawls, social media, and code. 

Concluding from a paper that says in it's abstract "commercial models rarely detail their data" that you know what makes up 99.95% of cases of training data, is a huge reasoning mistake. 

Given public communication it's also pretty clear that synthetic data is more than 0.05% of the data. Elon Musk already speaks about training a model that's 100% synthetic data.

From the perspective of thinking that Tyler is innocent it makes a lot of sense to encourage him to turn himself in. It makes it less likely that he would get shoot during the arrest and also makes it less likely that someone else can shoot him in retaliation for allegedly shooting Charlie. He shouldn't have any expectations of permanently being able to escape a manhunt either. 

B) Sing from the rooftops and to every single possible news outlet you can find that your son is being setup in order to free him.

Do you think that's what a lawyer would advise him to do as the most effective way to free his son? I doubt that's the case. Standard legal advice is to not to talk to the media. 

But this solution should not be appealing to anyone who wants to use the cryptocurrency even if a cryptocurrency is better funded without much mining (of course, if mining is replaced with another consensus mechanism after all the coins have been created, then this objection does not stand). After all, Satoshi Nakamoto did not fund Bitcoin by selling bitcoins. There are other ways to fund a cryptocurrency project without alternate consensus mechanisms.

I don't understand why that would be an argument against just using proof of stake. Proof of stake has a bunch of different benefits. It solves the energy problem.

It also increases the amount of writes that the blockchain can do per minute which is very important for usability.

How about reading the post to which I'm replying? It quite explicitly defines bad faith in a way that not about "conscious intent to deceive". 

If you look at the YIMBY example that Anna laid out, cities policies are not under direct control of citizens, yet Anna found some points that relate to what people can actually do.

If it seems like you don't have any control over something you want to change it makes sense to think of a theory of changes according to which you have control.

Right now, one issue seems to be that most people don't really have it as part of their world view that there's a good change of human extinction via AI. You could build a heuristic around, being open about the fact that there's a good chance of human extinction via AI with everyone you meet. 

There are probably also many other heuristics you could think of about what people should do.

For whom would you recommend getting additional doses of the Covid vaccine right now?