I think this is a category error. Those are properties of systems of logical axioms.
But LLMs are not logical; they are statistical. It can only 'believe' a statement is true in the Bayesian sense, where the statement agrees with the priors.
Also more and more use of an extremely annoying effect: text-heavy animations that reset themselves for no reason while you're trying to read them. Step 11, for instance: no value whatsoever is added by erasing and redrawing that figure.
Still, overall a very nice piece of pedagogy. If you didn't grok determinants before, this will probably help.
"won" is a very strong word for a country that sits economically somewhere between South Sudan and Congo, with a primary "enemy" that started out similarly and is now easily 20 times richer.
Self-sufficiency and exclusion from global trade can be very expensive for a nation long-term (a cautionary tale, since those ideals are a bit of a siren call nowadays to many Americans, after getting quite wealthy by doing the exact opposite).
The leadership doesn't particularly care, they get to live quite plush lives in their little hermit kingdom and only care about the general population in so far as they need to be comfortable enough they don't risk rebelling. Winning for the Kim family is remaining in power and they've secured their position against outside aggression quite successfully.
Nuclear weapons and ICMBs that can deliver them to the US makes the threat more meaningful too. There was always the chance that a Trump-like president would decide a few days of shells raining down in Seoul while we hunted NK's artillery positions would be worth getting rid of NK. Road mobile ICBMs that can deliver a nuke to the US mainland removes that option unless they're REALLY REALLY strong believers in the 44 GBIs sitting in Alaska. (Ignoring their shoddy track record and the fact we only have 44 and usually shoot 2-4 at each missile)
It's being extended breathlessly into an moral issue. User asked for gory images, got gory images. Will someone please think of the non-existent women who could be hurt by this?
I don't think you understand the concern. Or at least nothing you've communicated suggests you understand it.
ChatGPT should never produce images like this. Full stop. Prompted or not, it should refuse. Now we know it's possible to walk around the gate and get it to comply. Are there other, genuinely harmful images that it should never produce? Deepfake revenge porn? Images of specific people being brutalized? I'd argue those absolutely can be harmful to someone. Well now there's evidence the "never produce this" wall can be overcome. It's only a matter of time before genuinely harmful imagery is generated.
It may be harmful to someone if shared and sent with malicious intent, but more damage has been done with pens, keyboard and words. Start banning pens that let people write hurtful things next. Ban Photoshop after because someone can get hurt with a manipulated image.
Because the company has said they won't. I'm not making a value judgement about what images should exist here, I'm making a "the company said it shouldn't be capable of producing that output, then it does" argument. Thats a bug.
I wonder who makes assumptions that these differences are marginal and refuse or deny any studies that conclude otherwise. The left version of climate change if you will.
You make a good point in that there are large, slow-moving, but statistically significant effects in climate change, gender, and race.
You out yourself pretty badly in implying that individuals can be ignored in gender and race in the name of aggregate statistics.
There is similarity, there is not sameness, and like I said… the people who are fascinated with proving statistical differences in gender and race usually have ulterior motives. Just like climate deniers.
reply