I don't think the LLMs are to blame here. Not yet, at least.
This is caused by people active in English-speaking communities translating memes literally and spreading them in their native language communities as-is.
As the meme spreads, monolingual speakers begin using the same format and eventually they reference it off-line.
> This is caused by people active in English-speaking communities translating memes literally and spreading them in their native language communities as-is.
You're right that memes are getting translated literally and spreading, but in terms of pure volume, LLMs doing the translation dwarf humans doing the translation.
Building a bot that picks whatever posts are trending on Reddit/imgur/etc, automatically translates them, and then posts them in target languages on social networks is an easy way to accumulate likes+followers; then those high reach accounts get used to push whatever makes money.
Not really. I have observed the same thing in Russian, and no, it's not for expressions that are translated literally.
Having said that, SOTA models got much better at this kinda stuff. They're quite able to write in a way that is indistinguishable from a native speaker, colloquialisms and all, with the right prompting.
But SOTA models are also expensive. Most automated translations are done with something way cheaper and worse.
That's basically my complaint about all these AI translations being shoved around in places. If they were better, I'd complain less. I suppose they'll get better eventually, but that's not really guaranteed. Google Translate is still somehow terrible and has stagnated for a long time -- things got a little bit better with DeepL but now SOTA LLMs (e.g. ChatGPT) are quite good (even if they still have quite some ways to go) and so far beyond the old stuff, and allow you to actually discuss the translation itself with nuances kept/lost rather than just a straight one-shot A to B.
Reasoning models are pretty interesting for this because they can iterate on the translation to get the subtle parts (like tone) right, especially if you prompt them to do so specifically.
Because you didn’t address the substance of their point:
What you’re arguing for is only single-round optimal, but multi-round suboptimal — much like defection in the Prisoners Dilemma is defeated by trust strategies the Iterated Prisoners Dilemma.
Until you show how it’s multi-round optimal, you haven’t addressed their critique.
But to answer the first, I’ve heard directly from party strategists that they look for people who vote, but not in a particular race. They can’t identify them directly, but a higher ballot submitted count than (eg) presidential vote count is a signal that they can gain voters in that area — which they follow up by surveying independents, etc to see what policy issues they’re concerned with.
The argument is that by not voting some rounds, you influence their platform in subsequent rounds. If you vote for them regardless, there’s no incentive to optimize their platform to address your concerns.
Doing what you're suggesting is exactly is what has got us here. Do you not see the pattern that the path we're on started very long ago?
What you're advocating benefits the greater evil ten times as much over a 20-year timespan. They're absolutely loving you. The more Bidens, the more Harrises, the more Clintons, the better for them.
You know why China is doing so well? Because they still remember how to think in the long term.
Russia has the strategic depth to mass manufacture specialty drones in a way that Ukraine cannot. Even though Ukraine used fiber optic drones first, the Russians were the first to produce them in large numbers and it took Ukraine months to catch up. Lancet/Shahed drones are even bigger examples of this.
Shahed where originally designed and manufactured by Iran. Russians initially bought and licensed them. And I assume are now improving upon the original design.
Russian is top down innovation with a thick layer of corruption. No matter how much you want to claim strategic depth, they are always several steps behind Ukrainians. No matter how many advantages due to size they have.
> Shahed where originally designed and manufactured by Iran.
I'm talking about mass manufacturing, not design. Russia has had capability to hit any Ukrainian factory since Day 1 of the war, that's why they've successfully dispersed and hidden their production so much. Also, I've always been pro-Ukraine.
>they are always several steps behind Ukrainians.
That's not true anymore, both sides have plateaued because all innovations are quickly copied. Anti-recon quadcopters were another Ukrainian innovation that took the Russians roughly 6 months to catch up to. The only advantage they have is size and strategic depth. There isn't much else.
Shahed evolved into Geran, then Geran 2, and now Geran 3 with jet engine, recently confirmed in use in Ukraine by Kyiv. So, Russia is innovating at a high pace. I'm concerned that America cannot innovate so quickly and cost-efficiently. Everything needs to go through tons of red tape, hourly rates are crazy, and the end product is extremely expensive and hard to maintain and evolve. Anduril to me is not America's answer. America needs on the battlefield innovation and means to share feedback in real-time. We're behind! That's my concern.
> That's not something you or anyone else could predict.
You're right: nobody can possibly predict how a nation with no blue water navy, and zero relevant (naval or otherwise) combat experience (ever) might fare against the most expensive, trained, veteran naval combat force in the world - backed by the world's two largest and most expensive, trained, veteran air forces (USAF, USN).
> This would immediately cause a death toll in the millions and a nuclear response would follow.
This presumes that the United States would ever allow a blockade to happen to begin with. The US Navy goes where it wants.
> Not that I'm a rabid atheist or would deny my child such a thing, but if THAT can enter my 8yr olds brain via his short allowed time where he can browse by himself, i'm worried what else is coming his way through it.
it's completely unsurprising that a child raised with no spiritual grounding would be interested in a book that teaches how to live and attempts to answer the questions that rationalists and atheists have nothing satisfying to say about.
How does one live a good life? Every religion tries to answer that question. Has the GP sufficiently replaced religion with something else to help their child answer that question?
One life is too short and too permanent to figure it out from trial and error so we have an instinct for myth to help guide us. That's why religion evolved.
You can help your child navigate that problem and separate doctrine from the helpful parts, or try to shelter them from scary ideas. Good luck with the latter strategy, especially if you want them to have a relationship with you as adults.
I'm religious myself. What you are describing is not taught by the bible as it is in its pure form, but is a selection of specific parts of it by the tradition that you are part of. A different, lesser known selection was posted in another comment, about rape and murder. You could also select very boring parts about family lists. Or meticulously detailed instructions about the beard of the priest. It is not wrong to try and live a good life, but that is part of a tradition, not purely based on the bible.
I'm sorry to tell you this but an eight year old isn't reading the bible because they had a philosophical meaning crisis and their journey into secular philosophy was unsatisfying, they read the bible because the minecraft influencer told them so, because they would do literally anything the influencer told them, hence the name, and probably why you should keep eight year olds away from them.
This may come as a shock to you, but morality and ethics do not presuppose religion. The rationalists and atheists don't have to replace religion with anything, they just don't need to invoke fear of the wrath of an imaginary sky father to justify being a good person.
I can't find the news/study at the moment but read recently about the opposite being the case: belief in a Christian god / such higher power resulting in weakened feelings of guilt from complicity or participation in wrongdoing
You would have to be completely indoctrinated to think an 8 year old is going to read the bible and see it as a way to live life, and not a confusing blood and sex fest. The only reason you think of it in such sheltered terms is your guardians said "Ignore the parts about donkey dicks, this is a guide to spirituality, we are told."
> Good luck with the latter strategy, especially if you want them to have a relationship with you as adults.
Again, you seem to live a sheltered life that you think people who don't read the bible are somehow broken people from broken families who are afraid of "scary ideas." I imagine if your child was reading the Quran you would not react this way.
No such kill switch exists, the US stopped providing electronic warfare intelligence that made the jets more survivable. The stoppage of all military aid was significantly more damaging.
They also refuse to update the electronic countermeasures systems installed in Ukraine's F16. Not a kill switch, but it is impacting the usefulness of the planes.
Whether actual kill switches exist is unknown. But if you were a European country, would you take the chance of buying fighters from a country threatening to invade multiple of your allies based on their assurance that the rumors about kill switches are nothing but unsubstantiated rumors?
Regretting it though[0] - "Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of the Danish Parliament’s Defence Committee, has expressed regret over the decision to purchase the F-35. [...] He now advocates for reassessing Denmark’s strategic dependency on the United States and calls on European allies to consider doing the same."
Yeah this is both bad but also being heavily misreported: the US can't shutdown hardware remotely, but loss of access to proprietary software effectively disables critical functionality which can effectively render a platform useless.
Up till now, there was no demonstrated risk of this happening - but that's a broken trust which won't be repaired for generations, if ever.
I agree with the assertion that there's no proof of a full killswitch based on known past events, but the above quoted statement is also a lot more definitive than I'm willing to be.
With a fighter jet as dependent upon electronic support systems as the F35 and which is sold around the world why wouldn't you put a highly classified backdoor killswitch into it just in case?
The idea that such a killswitch might exist is one that could have always reasonably been pondered, what's new is any/all non-US "Western" governments having to seriously entertain the idea that they would end up in a situation where the US would have a reason to use it against them.
> can't shutdown hardware remotely, but loss of access to proprietary software
By what mechanism is this mediated? Because that sounds awfully similar to a kill switch in terms of the end result. Analogy by way of enterprise software: "We didn't remotely disable the software you purchased from us. Rather our server simply refuses to service your requests which happen to be required for the software to function." (Evil laugh from man with goatee immediately follows this statement obviously.)
I think they're saying there might be one, and we no longer trust the USA to believe there isn't one (and I can't really understand why we ever did, USA has been an unreliable ally even before trump).
You made the extraordinary claim that the USA has no kill switch. Where's the proof to your claim?
The kill switch first reported wasn't for jets, but was for HIMARS[0], which stopped receiving data for strikes.
But everyone viewed this kill switch as a way broader than HIMARS, and rightfully so.
It will be foolish to assume that the USA has the capacity to turn HIMARS targeting capacity off, literally incapacitating the system which was built in the 90s, but somehow won't be able to kill switch a F35... This is disingenuous.
No country should trust their national security on the whims of one guy sitting in the White House, that can decide to side with the enemy and make your jets stop working because of disabled services.
I find it curious that Israel managed to convince US that they can run their own firmware, (most probably) bypassing all this. I mean do get that region politics, oil and Iran and all, plus who sits in US power places but still.
Or why Europeans didn't insist to get same version (probably no leverage). Well any next armament purchase by Europe thats smarter than a lead bullet should have full code delivery with all build processes. Still not 100% perfect scenario but least minimum acceptable.
> Or why Europeans didn't insist to get same version (probably no leverage).
I don't think it was a matter of leverage, but more of a blind trust in US Institutions, and denying the reality of their collapse.
No one would have believed at any point in the last 80 years that the US would be threatening to invade and annex Canada or Greenland, all while having a group of protected billionaires promoting the collapse of the European Union, the rise of nazism and the protection of a Russian autocratic regime.
A system that has to call home to work and is no longer being replied to is by any functional definition under a kill switch. The orange buffoon pushed a switch in Amerikka Oblast and the weapon can no longer defend itself.
The reality is that both sides still kill someone begging like that. Both sides are using over at least a 1,000+ drones a day and yet only 1-2 videos of this nature come out every month.
far more than one or two; easily 5+ a day just in reddit r/combatfootage, and there are many similar subreddits, many pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian.
The AFU suggested that they see maybe a 40-60% kill rate -- "kill" as in hit and damage; casualty rate -- from drones.
so you're only seeing the 40% that actually do anything, and of those, the ones that can be released, both for OPSEC, as well as simple logistics like having enough bandwidth to upload or time to edit.
I don't see that happening. They're too simple and too effective for any military to ignore. The bomber drones cause more casualities than any other type of drone and most of them are just commericial off-the-shelf drones with very simple modifications.
It doesn't matter if you build skyscrapers for over a century if you don't build enough of them. The only places in the country where rent is actually going down is where housing is actually being built in any significant numbers. Austin builds more homes in a week than San Fransisco does in an entire year.
Rent is 5k because the supply isn't meeting the amount of demand.
