Skip Navigation

  • This is just another study that proves Chinese censorship regarding LLMs. There's ample evidence.

    Right, it's well known that authoritarian China censors what they consider "sensitive topics". So instead of another study that states what is established by their laws which anyone can read, a more useful study would be comparison of how different authoritarian countries approach the same issue.

    There is also ample evidence of US government by private or public pressure making US companies to self-censor their models around political or "national security" topics.

  • I don't think these type of comparisons achieve anything of value. It really feels like the study is trying to prove the desired result instead of trying to prove a blind hypethesis.

    More realistic comparison would be US-developed models answers for levels of censorship related to United States politics vs China-developed models answers for levels of censorship related to Chinese politics.

  • What a good question. Please do some research and learn the difference.

  • European Commission =/ Spain business court

  • Not true. Business courts only have jurisdiction over companies domiciled in Spain or wider-EU under certain circumstances. Neither ProtonVPN nor NordVPN are domiciled in Spain or EU.

    But even if we ignore that, the fact that the order issused inaudita parte is another procedural grounds to void the order.

  • The order is unenforcable. Spanish courts have no jurisdiction over companies registered in other countries. It's one of the most basic legal concepts, for order to be valid court must have jurisdiction over all parties.

  • !steampunk@lemmy.zip - Come discuss steampunk with us!

    Jump
  • Thanks for the mention. We have a new icon now.

  • !steampunk@lemmy.zip - Come discuss steampunk with us!

    Jump
  • I always prefer user created art, but since I have no artistic capabilities myself, LLM-generated is better than none to start with.

    Updated the community icon to yours and given you the credit in the sidebar. Thank you!

  • The level of overreach happening with courts lately is mind boggling.

  • Yes, learning how to commit war crimes is essential...

  • So they are fine being associated with Nazis? They don't see a conflict with their proclaimed values and goals? How can I trust that they mean anything they say when their actions in being on Nazi platform contradict that?

  • They remain popular. They were cut not because they lost popularity, but because nobody were willing to improve them and that then allowed racists to win and cut them. Most openly racist modern politician Trump campaigned on keeping all the social safety net programs because they were popular and are still popular, if someone would have campainged on expanding them they would have won instead.

    US has presidential term limits because racists were incapable of winning against popular policies back in the day.

  • It works in a vaccum where economic policy is the same due to uniparty, but again that doesn't work when put up against popular policies.

  • It doesn't work on big enough scale to matter. There is a reason that candidates that run popular policies always pull in racist voters, just like Bernie Sanders did with Fox News viewers and then Trump voters and at this point multiple congress and senate seats have been won by non-white people despite all the racism. Also, it's easy to counter. It's a class issue, not a race issue. And polling shows that not only it's a good policy, but also works as a counter messaging strategy.

    Good economic policy beats most social conditioning over time. For the same reason Trump had to stop saying that affordability was a hoax, because even his cult members couldn't deny that when they are daily confronted by those prices. Americans love to get self-owned for party participation trophy, but everything has a breaking point.

  • If you tap the working people by offering them meaningful policy to improve their lives even racists will be happy to vote that.

  • Assuming they are not lying about their internal policies (nobody disputed that at the moment), it's already not allowed and this was writer fuck-up. Benj Edwards "Senior AI Reporter", co-author of that article took the blame for it.

    The article was also removed after 1 hour and 42 minutes on a Friday. That's faster than most other publications able to include update note in my experience (when they bother in the first place).

    Apart from punishing this writer for breaking the internal policy I'm not sure what else they can do here to satisfy your concerns.