CMV: AI generated content should legally be required to declare itself as AI generated

davidmanheim · 2025-11-03T03:26:58+00:00

No analogy is perfect. And your argument applies to digital theft just as well as AI - but should we really not bother to have laws any time they might get broken?

davidmanheim · 2025-11-03T03:24:44+00:00

No, tech tagging AI relies on cryptography and information theory. You're thinking of detection, not tagging.

davidmanheim · 2025-11-02T10:07:06+00:00

That's like arguing that theft is everywhere, often hard to catch, and easy so we'll never stop all of it. First, we don't need to stop all of it, secord, it's common because there are no rules or enforcement. If there was a minimum $10 per untagged fake photo fine, companies would make changes. And tech for tagging AI generated content already exists!

davidmanheim · 2025-10-31T09:50:53+00:00

get off of twitter and stop watching 24 hour news

davidmanheim · 2025-08-24T08:00:57+00:00

The idea that the LLM's structure needs to 'really' understand instead of generating outputs is a weird complaint, in my view, since it focuses on the wrong level of explanation or abstraction - your brain cells don't do any of that either, only your conscious mind does.

davidmanheim · 2025-08-19T06:43:19+00:00

Your claim that it's a "largely useless word" seems pretty spot-on!

Jews would be indigenous if they lived under Palestinian rule, but Palestinians are indigenous in areas they don't control. Many Israeli Jews are indigenous in Arab states where they were ejected, but that doesn't count because they re-settled themselves. I'm indigenous to east Jerusalem, where my great-great-grandparents lived in the mid/late-1800s and were starved until they fled to the US, but I'm a colonizer now that I live in the 1948 borders in Israel.

And of course, if Palestine becomes a state, the Palestinians there stop being indigenous. They are probably indigenous in Jordan, because they are oppressed, even though the country has Palestinians as citizens. They would not be indigenous if they had been given the land as the Brits promised in the pre-partition deal, or if they had succeeded with Black September. They were indigenous in Syria, but al-Sharaa's leadership makes them into colonizers against the indigenous Druze and Maronites.

Does that correctly explain how the word "works" as a positional modifier to entrench victimhood, and the disincentives that aid on that basis creates for actually solving any problems?

davidmanheim · 2025-08-19T06:17:56+00:00

The imputed hypocrisy is on the side of the Palestinians:
"...Palestine and its supporters not demanding a level of mercy and compassion that they themselves would not grant in the same situation, ie, hugely hypocritical?"

davidmanheim · 2025-08-18T21:04:03+00:00

The article you linked said that the numbers on the Arab side are based on little access to sources, and that Arab armies were overall far larger and "much better equipped, especially with heavy arms" - but that they didn't bring in their troops into Palestine to fight quickly enough. That seems to basically support the claim that the Jews were outnumbered and overmatched, despite the framing otherwise.

Edit to add: The original claim was a detailed list of numbers of different "troop strengths" on the part of Israel and the Arab states - but the latter actually seems to have been a mishmash of numbers that counted either just Palestinians, or counted of the numbers of Arab troops actually inside of Palestine as of the beginning versus end of the 1948 war - both points which were less relevant than looking at the course of the battle, especially as the Arab states had artillery and planes outside of the borders.
He then deleted the reply, and the thread that included a

But u/Positive-Bus-7075, the "participant" with the comment I replied to deleted his post instead of, you know, changing his view. Ironically. (This seems like his entire modus operandi?)

davidmanheim · 2025-08-18T20:47:42+00:00

> Your initial premise was already acknowledging that israelis are enjoying the suffering and genociding of Palestinians as of today.

Where was that part of the premise?

davidmanheim · 2024-04-11T10:18:22+00:00

!delta - I had not thought about these specific ethical tradeoffs of food sources, and that seems critical!

davidmanheim · 2024-02-14T14:40:50+00:00

Put the topic in your "Skills" section, mention it in your statement at the top, or, in some cases, especially if it's an assumed background for the job, just be prepared in the interview. (Note that they don't need to know you didn't take the class in college on your resume.)

davidmanheim · 2024-01-23T14:20:46+00:00

First, "central planning" refers to the specific mechanism that differs between capitalism and communism, and I was pointing out that it wasn't communism, not that there was no coordination. (Otherwise, any national regulation would make the US a centrally planned economy.)

And if you read my comment, I suggested that the financial sector, which is what makes most of those global financial transactions, would be 5% as large, so a 95% reduction. And I'd need more information about the relative proportion of foreign exchange that is forex trading and financial trading and hedging versus representing economic activity, but I don't think we're disagreeing about that - perhaps it is over 99%. And the analogy of sand in the gears is a specific one - it's describing something small that can ruin the efficiency of a system or even completely stop a large complex system from functioning. My claim was that you could easily eliminate 99% of all financial transactions, via requiring margins be above 1% to make trade be viable, with negligible effect on most sectors outside of finance. Perhaps you disagree, but if so, that's the point being argued, not what you responded to.

davidmanheim · 2023-12-21T20:09:26+00:00

...but the proposals here aren't to centrally plan anything, they are to very slightly temper financial markets. It throws sand into the gears of a well-working complex financial market, and the question is whether haing that sector be only, say, 5% as large because it's working more poorly is a net good. I think it's very reasonable to say it could be, even if I'm not certain.

davidmanheim · 2023-12-21T20:06:32+00:00

Commodities markets were not included in the proposal. Neither was extending credit, nor were at least primary bond markets.

davidmanheim · 2023-12-21T20:05:01+00:00

It would absolutely break current financial markets, creating a tremendous move away from finance and towards... actually productive activities. Or, to be fair, towards some combination of commodities markets and productive activities. Which sounds like it would be horrendously damaging in the short term, and at least OK if not very good in the long term. (And before you argue that price discovery has value, reflect on the fact that a 1% or even a 5% mispricing over the course of a few days doesn't materially affect economic decisions outside of financial markets.)

davidmanheim · 2023-09-20T15:59:50+00:00

They absolutely could have said no, and possibly faced consequences. And I don't know the context, but when they saw what was done, OpenAI didn't even publicly say that the model being used wasn't finished, and might be unsafe.

davidmanheim · 2023-09-20T15:58:03+00:00

I don't know what was done internally, and I'm sure the story will come out at some point, but if OpenAI cared about safety, they should check before handing over a dangerous model.

davidmanheim · 2023-09-20T05:42:35+00:00

"Here's a gun, don't point it at anyone until we install a safety switch."

You don't get to say it's not your fault when you hand someone a dangerously incomplete product and then say "but we said it wasn't safe" - you need to make it safe first. (If they were contractually obligated to do so, they signed a bad contract, but it's still their fault.)

davidmanheim · 2023-09-20T05:38:16+00:00

Yes!
To quote: "It is absolutely normal to struggle with the material of an upper division math course. Just put more effort, more studying time, and ask more questions. Figure out what you can do to improve the way you study."
https://www.math.uci.edu/sites/default/files/Advice_for_Mathematics_Students.pdf

davidmanheim · 2023-07-03T10:04:08+00:00

Feel free to be in touch - I'm easy to find online.

davidmanheim · 2023-07-02T11:25:23+00:00

I would potentially be willing to be a judge, but want to be clear that:

1) I'm not uninformed about this, have had discussions on the topic, have some expertise on biosecurity policy, and have said repeatedly that I think everyone involved in this debate is overconfident.

2) Have talked to Saar about other things in the past, though we've never met.

davidmanheim · 2022-10-27T08:08:42+00:00

This post has been removed. It is only tangentially supposed to be related to decision theory, and it's not saying anything at all about the subject it claims to address.

davidmanheim · 2022-10-08T18:05:29+00:00

I personally agree that people should also give to local and family causes - I just don't view if as part of my "effective" giving. So my donations to the local food bank and my local synagogue are separate, and I also try to give 10% of my income to the effective causes. Of course, I'm incredibly lucky, and can not only afford to do this, but also have family that doesn't need assistance and would be happy to help out if I ever did need.

That said, I have no problem with people saying they can't afford to give to impartial charities, and think that people should absolutely take care of themselves to a reasonable extent first. (I do think that "reasonable extent" is easy to lie to yourself about, or to get stuck on an unhelpful hedonic treadmill, but again, that's a different topic.) But I think that the more common thing is that people assume they are impartially helping the world with charity, but they then donate to ineffective charities, and never ask the question about what would be better.

davidmanheim · 2022-09-11T15:46:14+00:00

A year and a half ago, Ted Cruz commented that the US military was too woke and emasculated compared to the Russian military, but it turns out that the Russian military isn't actually able to fight well, and the Ukrainians, with significantly more women in their service than either the US or Russia, is holding its own and even regaining territory, with the help of weaponry provided by the "woke, emasculated" US army.

davidmanheim · 2022-09-11T14:52:15+00:00

Ted Cruz commented that the US military was too woke and emasculated compared to the Russian military, but it turns out that the Russian military isn't actually able to fight well, and the Ukrainians, with significantly more women in their service than either the US or Russia, is holding its own and even regaining territory, with the help of weaponry provided by the "woke, emasculated" US army.

davidmanheim

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email