hemogloben

An example of this was JetBrains' initial subscription plan.

Early Sept 2015 JetBrains announced their initial subscription plan to SIGNIFICANT public pushback. Within two weeks they announced new terms (essentially their current hybrid subscription plan).

> Treating people under 18 is a politically losing issue.

Treating people as 'a politically losing issue' is weird to me. There are certainly some nuances to <18 transgender care, but that statement doesn't address any of them and just suggests we embrace political cowardice.

> When policies around it changed, that tipped the scales from the public ignoring trans women or seeing them as victims, towards many members of the public seeing them as monsters who are out to get their children.

This is worse. It wasn't because politics around it changed, it was because republicans (upset that they could no longer target gay people), reused the same crappy arguments against trans people, and then wrapped it in a pedophilic flag.

The change in policy is just effective propaganda making people concerned that random doctors are allowing their children to get sex change operations without consent, when that isn't how ANY of this works. Children <18 can socially transition, get puberty blockers, and MAYBE get hormone treatment. WITH parent consent.

The fact that the media and comments like yours continues to pretend its a reasonable 'discussion' perpetuates the nonsense.

Is this just fiber distance between each datacenter? The coloring makes it seem significant, but from the distances it kinda just looked like ever < _km (100ms) was green, everything between _km(100ms) and _km(200ms) was orange, and everything over was red.

Have they open sourced any of it?

It isn't the current state of society. It's the current state of the training corpus + prompt. Those implicitly include bias.

It sounds like that's acceptable to you because you think current state of training corpus == current state of society. And you view any bias in prompt as bias.

The truth is most of this ML happens in corpus selection + prompt selection. There literally ISN'T a way to avoid bias. So the problem becomes what bias do you select.

And in that scenario choosing abuse decreasing measures seems like the most pragmatic (to me).

>So if LLMs did the same (i.e. purposefully distorted facts and historical events due arbitrary and political reasons) it would also be acceptable?

You're talking as if there is a way to get an 'unbiased' AI. There isn't. It is inherently biased by its training, it hallucinates, and it is further biased by its prompt.

The whole endeavor is to bias it.

I'd prefer that AI be labelled on the tin for what it's biases are attempting to do, and promote diversity and deter abuse seems like a perfectly reasonable metric to use.

If that's not good for you fine, but you can't pretend that you're utterly baffled why they would make that choice over any other.

There literally ISN'T a way to not have a biasing prompt.

No. As a society we have inbuilt bias. Every step from image capture, to image selection, to image training, to performance evaluation includes bias.

That isn't just true of AI. Electrically, chemically, experiments must always consider their environment and account for confounding factors.

I'm not an apologist, the behavior exists. But I agree with the original development that it exists for a reason.

No, it isn't a perfect AI image gen algo. Much like spam blocking making me click a box or select the motorcycle isn't an ideal anti-spam measure.

Sometimes you have to implement something non-ideal to prevent abuse. It's as simple as that.