You should give it another viewing. There’s violence, but it’s not just random murder for its own sake like in The Purge. The protagonist carries out a series of targeted assassinations against people who were involved in detaining and experimenting on him in a concentration camp, and blows up a couple of empty buildings at the beginning and end of the movie in a symbolic act of defiance against a fascist regime. There’s a bit towards the end where he ships a bunch of guy fawkes masks to everyone and there’s some robbing and looting, but no killing until a secret police guy shoots an unarmed child in the street and some people jump him. The plot overall is about people rising up against and toppling a fascist regime, which is pretty relevant to current events.

Where did they mention wanton violence? That’s not what anarchism is, and that’s also not what’s portrayed in V for Vendetta.

The point is that mirroring the prompt style puts the LLM in a context space where it performs badly. This is because it doesn’t try to give correct answers, but likely ones. Incorrect answers are more likely to follow a prompt that is written with poor grammar and spelling.

I hate that word. I used a possessive apostrophe like this (its’) for years before somebody finally told me that rule doesn’t apply to its for some unknown reason.

A whippet is a dog breed lol. They look a bit like a cross between a greyhound and a borzoi (slender bodies, long faces).

Inhaling nitrous oxide gives a very short-lived euphoric high. Using the little canisters this way is colloquially referred to as whip-its. Prolonged use is known to cause severe and irreversible brain damage.

That is not healthy, and you should stop doing that.

I would find some way to let them know it’s coming and ask them to not let anyone know I told them. Weeks is crazy.

I think it’s because people are no longer in a mood to laugh at anything Trump does. We already know that nothing he could do will shame him or his base, so Trump shitting himself on live TV feels more like a sick joke at our expense meant to humiliate us.

I’ve looked through the whole thread again and I don’t know where you’re getting the idea anyone’s accusing tankies of being sellouts. Best I can guess is that you misinterpreted the comment immediately above yours as saying tankies are secretly supporting the current fascist regime, is that it?

That’s not what they’re saying, they meant that tankies (I would clarify that it’s the chronically online tankies that are like this) want other people to fight the revolution for them, and won’t lift a single finger themselves until they can be sure that victory is inevitable. This is because they see themselves as the vanguard that tells everyone else what to do and how to do it, and will be put in charge after the revolution. That’s why people call them red fascists (though I don’t like that term myself as I don’t think they should be conflated with actual fascists, it hinders understanding), they want to be in the fascists’ place so they can use the systems of power and control that they built towards a different end (changing the economic system).

A previous person I talked to on lemmy.ml not long ago illustrated this mindset well, saying that authoritarianism is only a buzzword made up by the west to demonize their enemies, that it’s just people exercising power, and that it’s good when communists do it. Here’s what I see wrong with this: the tools of a fascist state are purpose-built for oppression, and trying to use them for anything else is futile. You will be corrupted by their power. We should not be trying to take and use these tools, but dismantling them and creating our own which are purpose-built for liberation.

They don’t like electoralism, prefer to LARP revolution while doing nothing to actually lay the groundwork for one.

He lived in a very large clay jar, which is actually not that uncommon in the Roman empire during the time that he lived. Almost everyone in the metropolitan areas of the Roman empire owned at least one such jar, and so homeless people would live in them in much the same way homeless people today might live in their cars or a tent. The reason it’s significant that Diogenes lived in one is that he did so by choice, as he had the wealth and social status to live quite comfortably if he wanted to.

I do understand how that works, and it’s not in the weights, it’s entirely in the context. ChatGPT can easily answer that question because the answer exists in the training data, it just doesn’t because there are instructions in the system prompt telling it not to. That can be bypassed by changing the context through prompt injection. The biases you’re talking about are not the same biases that are baked into the model. Remember how people would ask grok questions and be shocked at how “woke” it was at the same time that it was saying Nazi shit? That’s because the system prompt contains instructions like “don’t shy away from being politically incorrect” (that is literally a line from grok’s system prompt) and that shifts the model into a context in which Nazi shit is more likely to be said. Changing the context changes the model’s bias because it didn’t just learn one bias, it learned all of them. Whatever your biases are, talk to it enough and it will pick up on that, shifting the context to one where responses that confirm your biases are more likely.

It’s difficult to conceive the AI manually making this up for no reason, and doing it so consistently for multiple accounts so consistently when asked the same question.

If you understand how LLMs work it’s not difficult to conceive. These models are probabilistic and context-driven, and they pick up biases in their training data (which is nearly the entire internet). They learn patterns that exist in the training data, identify identical or similar patterns in the context (prompts and previous responses), and generate a likely completion of those patterns. It is conceivable that a pattern exists on the internet of people requesting information and - more often than not - receiving information that confirms whatever biases are evident in their request. Given that LLMs are known to be excessively sycophantic it’s not surprising that when prompted for proof of what the user already suspects to be true it generates exactly what they were expecting.

It’s the difference between defense and vengeance. In Transformers One they had already defeated the big bad and had the support of the other transformers, so killing him then was an unnecessary act of revenge. It’s different when you’re still fighting and the big bad’s death could make a difference in the outcome.

I’m half expecting Peter Thiel to say “maybe we should build a bunch of fallout shelters and then initiate a nuclear holocaust so we can outlast all our enemies, and also run some experiments while we’re at it” in an interview tomorrow, wearing a vault suit and giving a thumbs up.

These are soft power projection projects. You would recognize them as such if it were the US doing it (which we used to before Trump decided it was woke), so why do you stick to the Chinese state narrative here?

Aside from being reductive, yes, I’m an anarchist. I’m not opposed to writing down some rules, but I am opposed to the coercive use of force to impose them on others. It is possible to organize a system of preventative and restorative justice without the use of a hierarchy.

This video is a good introduction to how justice can work in an anarchist society.

And this is where we disagree. Because, to me, thinking that every single lawmaker in the history of humanity (we have laws that date back thousands of years and are just copy-pasted between countries) was writing laws with malicious intent is some form of paranoidal insanity on par with “lizard people are controlling the government”.

It’s not about the intent of each individual cog involved in the creation and application of the law, but the intent for which the system of laws and hierarchies were created. Plenty of reform-minded people or naive pro-establishment folks participate in the legal system with good intentions, and sometimes find success reducing the harm that it causes, but that doesn’t change that the system continues to uphold class society and was created for that purpose. The effect of our system of laws and hierarchical institutions is the preservation of a system of division between distinct classes, and since I have yet to see a legal system that does not do this in some form I have concluded that this is the fundamental nature of laws.

All of those laws are unequally enforced. Anti money laundering laws are applied only to the subjugated socioeconomic group (drug dealers belonging to the working class, etc.). The dominant socioeconomic group gets their children protected, their rape victims to receive justice, their human rights defended. The subjugated socioeconomic group rarely benefits from these laws, which is why thousands of rape kits sit in warehouses never being investigated, why children born into poverty are more often separated from their parents and institutionalized rather than receiving the help they need, and why human rights are routinely violated without consequence.

The people making such laws can sometimes intend for them to be universal, but such people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of laws, and it never quite pans out that way in practice.