When YouTube does this it means that they tacitly endorse the behaviour of everyone who is currently monetised at the moment. I’m sure it would be easy to find many monetised channels with similar allegations as well as people who have actually been convicted of crimes.
Edit: for example, someone like Chris Brown is convicted of domestic abuse as well as accused of many other incidents. He appears to be monetised on youtube.
>If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action.
So why does this apply to Russell Brand but not to Chris Brown who is convicted of violence against another YouTube user? It must mean that youtuber endorses the behaviour and criminal activity of Chris Brown.
I think "endorse" is far too strong of a word. No, YT isn't "endorsing" Chris Brown.
But it certainly raises the question of YT being arbitrarily punitive. Rather than endorsing, it ignores certain allegations while demonetizing others.
It’s never been that arbitrary at YouTube though. Pretty easy to spot patterns. It’s very obvious that it’s a small motivated human group doing this, not just a faceless process protecting their profits using some hyper capitalist risk projection with advertisers, where the news cycle comes in and the outputs go out.
Because chris brown isn’t making anti-establishment content. It’s selectively applied and curiously both the accusations (10+ years old) and this fallout occur right around the start of election season.
If his content was on the other side of the aisle he’d be defended not demonetized.
Needing a licence to create or possess models is what they’re planning here right? It obviously makes sense for openai and other big companies because it makes it more difficult for smaller competitors but it is really scary. It is probably way more dangerous for society than some theoretical artificial super intelligence because of opportunity cost and that it would certainly lead to more and more authoritarianism.
Calling it "engineering" is the idiotic part, not the actual act. It's obnoxious that 15 minute after ChatGPT was announced there were people marketing themselves for outrageous prices as "prompt engineers".
If people are willing to pay them for the value they bring, then no wonder they're marketing themselves that way. If it's effective and their goal is increased renumeration then they're smart people.
I agree, but it's actually perhaps not as bad as white goods OEMs sending out 'engineers' to fit replacement parts, or ISPs' 'engineers' connecting faceplates for a fibre installation, etc. that we've had for years.
An an electrical engineer, I often scoff at people using the term software engineer. Even though I belong in the software developer class. So you can imagine how I look at “prompt engineering”.
True engineering is dealing with unchanging and unchangeable constraints (which you find in the natural world). It’s exceedingly difficult to do without a four year degree which is usually not enough.
This other stuff you can learn in a weekend, well, I wish they would not take the word engineering.
I'm not here to defend prompt engineering I could care less what it's called but why are you people so offended by people using the term? It's inarguable that there are people that are better at getting certain results from these new models in their first shot because they know how to interact with the system better than others and understand its inner workings better.
Maybe the term engineer has been watered down from what you learned in school but in my and many other people's views its synonymous with hacker in a lot of these categories. I wouldn't call an electrical engineer an electrical hacker but if you weren't an electrical hacker you'd be a pretty garbage electrical engineer. If you've never messed around with or tested a concept or built a circuit for fun you'd probably hate your job and be worse at it. These people are doing these things with prompting and with software.
The strong feelings around the term Engineer partly date from the historical context, where inadequate engineering was more commonly and directly reflected in real human deaths. This was a huge motivator for the title of engineer to become codified and locked down to a specific set of proven and repeatable skills.
These days, most long-established engineering disciplines and similar professions are codified to the extent of having member's-only institutions and charters, and basically become "old boys clubs", including ranks and rituals.
Hence there is a divide, between these old schools of engineering and their exclusive ways, and those who use the term engineer more broadly and literally.
The old boys club mentality has many flaws, but they do have that one strong original point: that the harm one can inadvertently cause to others, under the title of engineer (or any expert), is proportional to the expertise claimed. If you claim you can design bridges, then it's incredibly important that you're right - else deaths.
Well, I’m with you, but you are not among friends on this forum. There are a lot of folks who are pretty dang happy with that “engineer” title. And they will protect it with their downvotes.
I don't think it should be censored here but it is a sexist term. It is never used in a positive way. The publishing industry is female dominated. Imagine that during the recent coverage of their attempts to censor old books, people referred the individuals responsible as "pub maids" or something like that. I don't think it would be quite as accepted.
And that's ok. I do not see what tangible effect this really has on anyone. They decided to use a negative term "bro", so what? Is it that bad? Is someone really taking a hit and feeling bad (besides for the sake of feeling bad under this "rigtheous" weather). I feel like there's more people being negatively affected by this word policing than really using such a word. I would be ok either way, tech bros, pub maids - I don't really look so much into words that it would really affect my thought - but that it wouldn't be accepted is not really indication of much. There are always loud voices that will feel upset by everything.
I think the frustrating thing for me is that the extreme reaction to his actions are really about his politics. I have no doubt that he would be being praised for saving Twitter instead of ridiculed for ‘destroying’ it if he had been toeing the party line.
Toeing the party line how? Any CEO who takes control of a company and behaves erratically towards its workforce, at he is doing now, would get criticized. The only difference is that alternate version of Musk might get called a hypocrite or a fraud, so just a different set of insults.
SBF was a huge Democratic Party donor and he's not escaping severe criticism because of it, even if the NYT and some other outlets might've gone easy on him. The court of public opinion is still severely against him.
I really fail to see the logic here, if Donald trump remained a Democrat in 2016 he would 100% not get nominated. Just look at what happened with Bloomberg.
Show some examples of this, AFAIK if you go against the voters you're out.
Republicans questions election results without proof and they are "undermining democracy". Hilary Clinton calls Trump an "illegitimate president" in 2019 and it's crickets.
Of course they'll wave their hands saying "it's different", but it's not. Either denying election results without evidence is wrong or it's not.
The first example is just not comparable, republicans are to this day proclaiming election stolen without ANY evidence of fraud.
While the 2016 event has always been about Russian election interference NOT election conspiracy by democrats.
The article you provided is Hillary saying sour grapes (not sure why poor ol Jimmy is asked about it), not rambling about crazy conspiracies to the point of embracing it.
Second example is more make sense, because Republicans strategy since Gingrich (of never compromise always obstruct), so if democrats are in favor of A then republican strategy is to literally advocate for B even though they are also for A (look at gun control passed in red states or voter encouragement laws).
Hilary said, without any proof, "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did."
But you make excuses about "sour grapes". It's not, she making claims of "voter suppression", "hacking" that resulted in a unfair election. That's a very serious accusation and undermines the election process. Just as serious as Republicans claiming election fraud.
Either making claims about illegitimate elections is wrong or not.
The difference is she's not wrong about those things (3/4 of them):
there was interference in the election (hacking)
Republicans have pushed for voter suppression
"fake" stories did plague her election (emails, benghazi)
voter purge I'm not sure what that is suppose to be about in this context.
And this is coming from a person that "hates" Hillary.
I don't make any excuse for her statements, I'm saying she not Donald trump who controls and influences their party.
How is her conduct during the Benghazi crisis and her leaked emails “interference”? Those seem like legitimate things for voters to take into consideration?
Again, Republicans say there were issues with the election and it’s “threatening democracy”, Hilary does it and everyone thinks it fine.
I think changing the verification badge into something actually useful instead of a status symbol is a good thing. If there is a great exodus of Twitter influencers and it starts to affect traffic, then twitter can just add some kind of notability mark to high profile accounts.
Edit: They already plan to add a tag for public figures.
For me, a big part of Wordle’s success was its share text. It shows exactly how you played the game without giving away the puzzle. It also gives a really simple score x/6 which allows you to brag easily supporting your number 3. I also like that there is no link embedded.
I have never understood the chemical imbalance theory anyway. Surely there needs to be a cause of a chemical imbalance like an auto-immune illness or something. Why hasn’t the focus been on the cause?
If your ft4 is very high or you have low levels of hgh, there is a cause. What theories to they have for these issues with serotonin?
Edit: for example, someone like Chris Brown is convicted of domestic abuse as well as accused of many other incidents. He appears to be monetised on youtube.
>If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action.
So why does this apply to Russell Brand but not to Chris Brown who is convicted of violence against another YouTube user? It must mean that youtuber endorses the behaviour and criminal activity of Chris Brown.