How about measuring the political bias in base reality?
> We want Claude to be seen as fair and
> trustworthy by people across the political
> spectrum, and to be unbiased and even-handed
> in its approach to political topics.
So, a lot of 'seems' rather than 'is.' They are training this to be non-offensive, based on some weird moral / media takes that shift year to year, political cycle to political cycle to political cycle. Not for bring forthright and fact based.
Wow.
This would be 'meh' if it was some weird individual. This is a 'whitehouse.gov' domain. This our our the Trump Administration folks. Acting like immature 13 year old, and making jokes no one under 40. And doing it using federal resources to do political party activities.
After decades of 'proprietary, respect, professionalism', this kind of childishness is just gross and embarrassing.
This is a false dichotomy presented to people. By framing this as 'Giant government, or giant business?" you are going to get crap answers.
None of these are one size fits all solutions, and there should be a mix. We have a working patch-work of laws in physical space, for a reason. It allow flexibility, and adjustments as we go, as the world changes. We should extended that to virtual space as well.
Age / Content Labeling and opt-in/ opt-out for some content. Outright ban on other kinds of content. A similar "I sue when you abuse my content" for copyright, impersonation, etc.
One size does not fit all, and is not how the real world works. Online shouldn't work much differently.
Great, please apply this to yourself, and livestream all of the time, leave the rest of us out of this.
People don't have one standard of behavior. I won't tell my kid jokes, I tell my wife. I won't complain about people in public, the way I vent to my sister (who gets it is just me venting, not how I feel all the time". I am not going to speak to a cop as I'm getting a speeding ticket, they way I will talk to one who is harassing a friend at a parade.
I won't talk to / about a co-worker in a meeting, the way I talk to someone he just (rightly, but very meanly) chewed out, and who needs a boss who listens, or will I talk to him in a meeting the way I will (a tad later) chew him out for making a coworker cry.
This take is so naive and emotionally / socially unintelligent about human behavior in various situations.
This is the fascist dream. Who defines 'Best Behavior?' Whoever owns the cameras, and the cops.
Criticize the president? Not best behavior.
Kiss someone of your sex/gender? Not best behavior.
Call AI stupid? Not best behavior.
Whistleblower on out a deadly chemical leak? Not best behavior.
Disagree with a politician? Not best behavior.
Defined LGBTQ+ people's rights? Not best behavior.
Criticize Isreal ? Not best behavior.
They are going to define "best behavior" in a way that never threatens their feelings, let alone threatens their powers, if you let them.
Looking at that list of extremist indicators, I would agree that they qualify as common beliefs. It's hard to be too outraged though, because they also seem to genuinely reflect destructive beliefs that are absolutely antithetical to American society.
Results that are too good to be true! The probably are. If this study was reproducible (it is not) someone would have started using it, bragging about it, and we would have 'recovery vacations' to cruise lines that would de-age us by years.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this just isn't it.
> If this study was reproducible (it is not) someone would have started using it
That supposes that there is an army of researchers dedicated to repeating expensive experiments. As far as I can tell this is doesn't exist. Especially in cases like this when it's obvious that the experimental protocol lacked controls and hence would cost more to repeat than the original study.
There are plenty of things that are not reproducible yet they make their way into text books and general practice.
I don't know if the claims in this article are correct but it is suggestive nonetheless:
"The analysis, which is published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, included 154 Cochrane systematic reviews published between 2015 and 2019. Only 15 (9.9 percent) had high-quality evidence according to the gold-standard method for determining whether they provide high or low-quality evidence, called GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation).
Among these, only two had statistically significant results – meaning that the results were unlikely to have arisen due to random error – and were believed by the review authors to be useful in clinical practice.
Using the same system, 37 percent had moderate, 31 percent had low, and 22 percent had very low-quality evidence."
"This article is like saying an apartment complex isn’t “losing money” because the monthly rents cover operating costs but ignoring the cost of the building. Most real estate developments go bust because the developers can’t pay the mortgage payment, not because they’re negative on operating costs."
I read all the articles. I didn't see any mentioning red tape, or regulations.*
All that talk of 'regulations' and 'red tape' is a guess.
This stink of a "Low priority project use as a place-holder, but as soon as even a mouse-sneeze comes up, the resources are put to a better used, and it is kicked down the road"
But (as you say) we are all pre-trained to assume 'red tape / regulations' so we back-fill that explanation, even with no evidence.
*(I Wouldn't mind a second reader, read them fast and searched, may have missed something.)
Folks;
Yeah this is a run of the mill dead low-priority project. It happens in private industry, capitalism, communism, the roman empire, etc. Only because government is out in the open, it is easy to see.
I don't have proof, but this stinks of 'Failed project used as a place-holder for schedule slop'. I see is so so so many places.
Somebody, or a lot of somebodies knows this [Refactor AIP / Electric Charge Lot] is not a good idea. Instead of saying 'It's dead' it gets used as a buffer in the project plan. Oh it's there, and if things are every slow enough, it will happen. But even a mouse sneeze will move it out a year, to make budget [time, or $$$ ] for something useful.
Once a year the [ boss / newspaper] will ask "Oh what about, [refactor / Parking Lot]' and somewhere points to the start and end date on the chart. But it's not a priority, and is a placeholder job that gets bumped and shifted for priority work.
It is all over the place, since time began. WWII had it. The Revolutionary War had it. Ford has it. Roman Empire had it. Lockheed Martin has it. Hell, your own house projects have it.
This is just 'A dead project is a placeholder since the org is bad at planning.' It is everywhere.
