polygamous_bat

> There is no credible accusation that X itself is tricking people here.

That is a purely subjective opinion, since I have talked to elderly people who assumed “blue checkmark = celebrity” and was therefore confused why there are so many such interactions on trivial posts.

> To take a hypothetical extreme: If all cars but one on the road were Teslas, it would not be meaningful to point out that there have been far more fatalities with Teslas.

However, in such a case, “base rate fallacy” would prevent you from blaming Tesla even if it had a 98% fatality rate. How do you square that? What happens if other companies aren’t putting self driving cars out yet because they aren’t happy with the current rate of accidents, but Tesla just doesn’t care?

> As such, while 5 > 0, and that's a problem, what we don't know (and perhaps can't know), is how that adjusts for population size.

This puts the burden on companies which may hesitate to put their “self driving” methods out there because it has trouble with detecting motorcyclists. There is a solid possibility that self driving isn’t being rolled out by others because they have higher regard for human life than Tesla and its exec.

There can still be product catalogues, people will still shop in person or on online resellers. You can still start off with a limited time discount so people can try your product. None of these need advertisement, they are organic ways of getting the word out there.

> If somebody believes that their message is important enough to outbid everybody else, their message ought to be the one that is displayed.

Sometimes (often?) people with a lot of money may not believe in speech but in suppressing speech. However, money should not allow for suppressing speech, for example by buying a giant megaphone and speaking over people.

By your logic paying people $500 to heckle at your political opponents rally is fine. It may be legally okay, but it is a moral hazard, and for a better society we should try to better distinguish between “free” speech and “bought and paid for” speech.

> Letting people communicate freely is a good thing in its own right, and fundamental to so many other good things we enjoy

I would argue that paid advertisement is a force distorting free speech. In a town square, if you can pay to have the loudest megaphone to speak over everyone else, soon everyone would either just shut up and leave or not be able to speak properly, leaving your voice the only voice in the conversation. Why should money be able to buy you that power?

Good information is valuable. When internet didn’t exist people paid good money for newspaper and magazines because they provided good information which people found valuable.

o1 does not show the reasoning trace at this point. You may be confusing the final answer for the <think></think> reasoning trace in the middle, it's shown pretty clearly on r1.

> The part of this that doesn’t jibe with me is the fact that they also released this incredibly detailed technical report on their architecture and training strategy. The paper is well-written and has a lot of specifics. Exactly the opposite of what you would do if you had truly made an advancement of world-altering magnitude.

I disagree completely on this sentiment. This was in fact the trend for a century or more (see inventions ranging from the polio vaccine to "Attention is all you need" by Vaswani et. al.) before "Open"AI became the biggest player on the market due and Sam Altman tried to bag all the gains for himself. Hopefully, we can reverse course on this trend and go back to when world-changing innovations are shared openly so they can actually change the world.

> I think a better example would be You (AirBnB Host) rent a house to Person and Person loses the house key.

This is not a direct analogue, a closer analogy would be when the guest creates a copy of the key (why?) without my direct consent (signing a 2138 page "user agreement" doesn't count) and at some later point when I am no longer renting to them, loses the key.

The difference is: Brazil is being run by Lula Silva, who opposes Bolsonaro, while Turkey is run by Erdogan, and India is run by Modi.

If you want to connect the thread, look into what kind of leaders Bolsonaro, Modi, and Erdogan are.

The missing context here is that the "misinformation accounts" that X was supposed to remove here are spreading the right wing propaganda saying the election was stolen from far-right sweetheart Jair Bolsonaro. On the other hand, the requests in India and Turkey are coming from, you guessed it, far right sweetheart Modi and Erdogan governments.

If you think Elon is doing this to defend "freedom of speech" I have a beautiful bridge to sell you.

This is an interesting question. Is there a “controversy-benchmark” perhaps, to measure this?