The don't emphasize citizenship because it is enough to live in the EU for the law to apply, i.e. immigrants etc. are included.
If you look into the actual GDPR, you will find the phrase "data subjects who are in the Union", which are "natural persons", for whom the data protection laws apply.
>you will find the phrase "data subjects who are in the Union", which are "natural persons", for whom the data protection laws apply.
tourists who are in the union also apply, there is no idea that you can figure out if that person is just traveling through the EU for some months you can do what you want with them.
>Data subjects in the Union means any person in the Union whose information is being collected at that moment, regardless of their nationality or legal status. That means EU citizens and residents are squarely in scope. And someone in the EU, even a US tourist using an app in the EU, is a data subject in the Union for purposes of the GDPR.
on edit: if you were just clarifying/backing up my original point, sorry, I thought it seemed you were going with interpretation of the person who I was replying to an EU company can do what they want with any U.S citizen's data.
LLMs, in this context, are nothing more than search indexes. The exact same information is a google query away. Publicly crawlable information was the training material for them, after all.
I'm quite aware, hence in this context, meaning the ability for users to query potentially questionable content, not the inner workings. Probably should have phrased it differently.
The danger of LLMs isn't really in their ability to parrot existing questionable content, but in their ability to generate novel questionable content. That's what's got everyone obsessed about safety.
- Generating new malware.
- Generating new propaganda or hate speech.
- Generating directions for something risky (that turn out to be wrong enough to get someone injured or killed).
But LLMs generate nearly everything they output. Even with greedy sampling, they do not always repeat the dataset verbatim, especially if they haven't seen the prompt verbatim. So you need to prevent them from engaging in entire classes of questionable topics if you want any hope of restricting those types of questionable content.
It's not "we can't let this model get into the hands of adversaries, it's too powerful" like every LLM creator claims. It's "we can't let our model be the one adversaries are using", or in other words, "we can't let our reputation be ruined from our model powering something bad".
So, then, it's not "we can't let people get dangerous info from our model". It's "we can't let new dangerous info have come from our model". As an example, Google got so much shit for their LLM-powered dumpster fire telling people to put glue on pizza.
Isn't this exactly the moment where he is wrong? Even if all three of these would happen simultaneously, it would still be easier to ensure human continuity on earth, not on mars. A mars colony would have to be underground to escape the radiation and poisonous atmosphere - but of course you could also build an underground shelter on earth. And have better gravity, easier energy sources, endless amounts of water and so on for free.
A mars outpost after a nuke party on earth would simply die, as it is completely unfeasable to both a) develop it so far that it becomes self-sufficient and b) not become a military target along the way simply because of its size.
That's probably true with our current technology and understanding of a Mars colony. The idea would be to get to a point where we have (at least) a self-sufficient colony as a backup.
As others have pointed out, it doesn't have to be Mars, it just needs to be not Earth.
Long term we obviously need to escape the solar system too.
You have fewer options without redundancy, no matter how ineffective the backup site is. The odds of getting many humans to collaborate on reaching a second planet is also greater than the odds of getting all humans to collaborate on saving this one (which, to be clear, is absolutely no chance at all).
> Yes in an ideal world they should catch any campaign of this sort, but global moderation is difficult
It really isn't, it just is expensive to do it. They could just hire people to do that. Thats the accusation. Of course they don't catch it if they don't try.
Meta (or TikTok or Twitter or any other social media company/product) can't both algorithmically create specific types of discourse (because higher engagement means more ad views) and deny responsiblity for the side effects of said discourse.
I think the point is that we don't observe evolution here, i.e. people with lesser IQ die more or reproduce less, but cultural adaptation. If high IQ scores are considered valuable, society creates environments that enable high IQ scores. Brains are pretty adaptable, even more so in the first 25 live years, and long exposure to an environment training for high IQ scores will result in higher IQ scores.
It’s not evolution insofar as the lower IQ scores are dying, but there is sexual selection. Mean reversion is from an approximation that does not hold for the subset of the population that is sexually selecting for intelligence. Two high IQ parents will on average produce offspring that have an even higher IQ.
Cane toads at the front of the cane toad expansion quickly evolve longer legs faster than one would expect if assuming there should be reversion to the mean.
Selection of high IQ women by high IQ men is a more recent phenomenon that has to do with having women in selective education so such pairings are a lot more common than they used to be, and you need both to be selected this way in order to avoid reversion to the mean.
You're implying that the reason for the increase in IQ scores is the result of society suddenly focusing more on educational outcomes, but I think you're wrong about that. Society's ideas about childhood education and educational outcomes haven't changed that much over the last 60 years.
It's far more likely that these changes result from more immediate factors like improved teaching methods, improved ideas about health and pedagogy and environmental factors (like the removal of lead from gasoline, etc)
I think the RAF (i.e. specifically the Bader-Meinhof group) were idiots at best and ruthless at worst but public perception of the RAF tends to be heavily biased by a lack of historical context.
The Federal Republic of Germany used to hide behind the irrefutable cruelty and oppression of the German Democratic Republic to get away with disgusting levels of state repression well into the 1960s. After the end of WW2 both German states also rehabilitated a lot of former NSDAP members and restored their positions in public offices often wiping their records clean in mock trials. The modern examples of police repression in Lüzerath (which in Germany were mostly framed in favor of the police while international media often highlighted the excessive police violence) or the Stuttgart 21 protests (which even in German media were described as shocking police violence because the protestors were seen to be "average people" rather than activists) pale in comparison to what was normal at the time. Also, after WW2 the German communist party KPD had been banned on the flimsiest of legal justifications (which to this day are generally agreed to be bogus although there is no political interest in revising the ban from either side) - a fate that to this day has otherwise been reserved for NSDAP-offshoots. Germany has also been extremely slow to account for its past with trials of Nazi officers still happening a few years ago - many supposed criminals getting to die of old age before ever going to trial. The formation of the RAF can also directly be traced back to the murder of a student protestor by a police officer.
The RAF - correctly - identified the US as the source of West Germany's anti-communism and it saw the West German state as a capitalist project largely operated by the same people that operated the fascist project of Nazi Germany before it. Their initial targets were primarily NATO, the West German police, West German politicians and former NSDAP members.
They also targeted Axel Springer, a right-wing media mogul whose tabloids still routinely run afoul of media ethics rules and border on violating laws against demagoguery. They bombed the Axel Springer offices but this was clearly intended to be more about sending a message and disrupting infrastructure as they called in advance and made an explicit bomb threat - twice. The building was not evacuated. The "most ethical military of the world" still insists that this practice washes its hands clean of any casualties of the bombing following the advance warning, so make of that what you will.
In the end, most of the original RAF members died in prison. The initial investigations were flimsy and there are credible allegations of their findings being motivated more by politics than evidence. Based on more recent examples of investigations into deaths in prisons or police custody, I find it difficult to trust either side on this.
I think it's accurate to describe the RAF as terrorists. I don't think they did any good no matter what their intentions were. Even if you somehow can come up with ideological justifications for their actions, that falls apart with the second or third generation at the latest. But that doesn't mean their victims were the Good Guys. The narrativization of RAF terrorism at worst just provided an excuse not to reflect on what motivated them - and to what extent those problems still linger today.
I didn't say the RAF weren't "far left". The exact ideology of the Bader-Meinhof group is not easy to pinpoint exactly, especially if you account for its evolution over time, but I think it's somewhat safe to say they broadly aligned with Maoism. They were at some point politically aligned with the East German government but that was clearly more for pragmatic reasons than deeply held convictions.
I'm merely saying that we whitewash a lot of that part of German history exactly because the RAF stood in opposition to it and if we all agree that the RAF were bad because they were terrorists then their victims must have been "good" and that is arguably closer to the opposite of the truth. "1960s Germany was full of NSDAP members in leadership positions and used excessive police violence to suppress civil unrest" is not a far left take, it's historical consensus.
The problem with the horse shoe and why although law enforcement likes it political scientists generally ridicule it is that politics are not one-dimensional and more often than not there actually isn't a middle ground. This actually has led to real world problems in Germany because just like how the East German government's ideological convictions made it incapable of acknowledging the existence of neo-nazis in East Germany because they saw fascism as an evolution of capitalism, German law enforcement can't adequately comprehend the German sovcit "Reichsbürger" movement because while being clearly far right it's actually in large parts a monarchist movement not a nazi one (although there are of course overlaps for pragmatic reasons).
As an outsider, I find that part of German history fascinating. It's a miracle that Germany was neutered relatively peacefully and it took just a generation or two. Especially when you compare it to post-war Japan (which was a success, but different, maybe better in the long run?) and post-cold-war Russia (which was a failure as we see nowadays).
Regarding horse shoe, I can share my personal anecdote. I'm born USSR & raised ex-USSR. Here far right was (and still is to a big extent) built on top of anti-soviet dissent. Pro-free-market, pro-nation-states, free speech and so on, basically reverse of whatever the soviet regime was. Even soviet punks and hippies were quite (far-)right especially compared to their west counterparts at the time :) I spent some time on UK university campus a good decade ago. It was very interesting how (far-)left at the time was quite similar to far-right back home. The goals were different, but the people, vector and modus operandi were very very similar. Punk kids, often from good stable background, were trying to find a way to solve eye sores of the society. While UK right-wing was completely different world to me with old-money and all that jazz. Which was very similar to our ex-USSR-establishment circles.
Germany hasn't had a left-wing extremist movement since the RAF, which was a GDR-affiliated group (or more accurately, a number of groups as the members of the initial Baader-Meinhof group were imprisoned) that performed political assassinations, bombings and abductions initially and then later bank robberies and other less ideologically motivated crimes.
We've been desperately trying to label groups as "left-wing extremist" ever since to avoid having to talk about right-wing terrorism without a comforting "all extremism is bad" caveat. The most recent example is the non-violent eco activist group Last Generation (Letzte Generation) which we've been trying to legally frame as a "criminal organization" (a legal device originally intended to help combat organized crime and terrorist cells) and which politicians and the media have at times referred to as "eco terrorists" and a "green RAF". Keep in mind their stunts mostly consisted of gluing themselves to intersection.
There was a broad "anti-COVID" movement (Querdenker/Querfront - "quer" in this case meaning "traversing (political lines)") founded in 2020 that drew from a broad political base including anti-vaxxers, new agers, "völkisch" nationalists, libertarians/ancaps and some groups self-identifying as leftist. The vast majority of leftist and anarchist movements however strongly opposed this movement, on the one hand because it was strongly affiliated with the political far-right (as a consequence of being a mix of people openly far-right, lying about not being far-right, being politically apathetic or being okay with aligning with the far-right) and on the other because while even anarchists disagreed with the implementation and choice of state anti-COVID measures they often did not disagree with their necessity in principle. These disagreements eventually contributed to Sarah Wagenknecht, a celebrity politician in the minor party Die Linke (The Left) parting ways with her party and founding her own party - although it's noteworthy that the party's official position of refusing to expel her for her publicly stated views led to many people breaking with the party prior to this.
With all that said, I wouldn't put too much trust on the German authorities' ability to correctly assess a terrorist group's ideological positions. According to some other news articles, the group does use left-wing language tho. Apparently it describes itself as being in a battle against "capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism" - which to me sounds more Third Worldist (i.e. Maoist) than anarchist. I can't imagine leftists in Germany broadly welcoming their actions tho as they're providing exactly the boogeyman politicians have been holding up as a justification for cracking down on non-violent "eco terrorists". Anarchists too tend to emphasize the importance of prefiguration before revolution (which is difficult because prefigurative projects also run risk of being labelled "criminal organizations" purely based on ideological stances) so I doubt they're too happy about the association either.
> With all that said, I wouldn't put too much trust on the German authorities' ability to correctly assess a terrorist group's ideological positions.
Yes.
Technically, the left as a political representation via vote is shrinking (fast)and theoretically Die Linke wouldn't be able to pass the 5% hurdle clause [1] plus with Sarah Wagenknecht et. al. leaving the space [2] it makes it harder to the government to classify something that they do not know for a while.
I like to joke that Germany doesn't have a political left because most of it was killed or killed each other in the period between the end of World War 1 and the end of World War 2 and what was left (heh) was then repressed in both German states (via capitalist anti-communism in the West and conservative vanguardism in the East).
There are some occasional flare-ups like the WASG splinter party that split off the SPD after accusing the SPD-Greens coalition Schroeder government of neoliberalism (which then went on to merge with the East German SED's successor party PSD to become Die Linke) but the most leftist forms of activism you see in practice is the ideologically very moderate trade unions like Ver.di and IG Metall and the ideologically incoherent anti-capitalist anti-state anti-whatever brick throwing troupes during the annual Labor Day riots.
I struggle to even describe the Wagenknecht party as left-wing despite her personal ideological origins.
> I struggle to even describe the Wagenknecht party as left-wing despite her personal ideological origins.
I am in the middle of her book [1] and I have the same issue as well.
From what I understood: Her views are more weighted to what we call in English as "Labor Party" +_Entwicklungspolitik_ + _Gewerkschaft_ where she saw that the left went too far on the identity politics and ideological battles and lost ground to a big chunk of demographics in Germany (median white person, with the income between 22-42K EUR/year, working for industry or adjacencies).
For the internal politics me makes sense what she is doing - and I think why she will be over the 5% hurdle next election as well - but the issue that I see is on the external policy where she doubles down on the duality/dubious Germany foreign policy to make friends with everyone and not having a clear path in terms of partnerships and alliances.
Compared with 2010-12 where FDP and AfD has clear paths and ideological and political directions, the issue that I see with the BSW is that for now, it's a blank check that the voters are giving to her and once they are on the Parlament no one knows how the BSW will swings.
As an aside: I love how the people complaining about "identity politics" are often the ones engaging in a blatant form of identity politics by painting a picture of a white median income working class person who doesn't care about social justice (which by the way is often an ahistorical caricature and is often used as a way to infantilize industrial workers, especially when the trope is invoked by politicians with academic backgrounds themselves).
That said, I'd say both the FDP and AfD heavily engage in hollow populism and that has benefited both to some extent so far and seems to be what BSW wants to copy. The AfD uses a veneer of middle-class conservativsm to transport far-right extremist ideas, the FDP uses progressivism and futurism to transport very narrow interest group politics (i.e. despite all its bold claims in practice it tends to mostly do exactly what its core donor demographic wants and will abandon its supposed ideals if they gain too much traction). I'm not sure what it is the BSW is trying to transport but they seem to have adopted a shell that is a loose amalgamation of an anti-progressive, anti-Green reactionary sentiment mixed with a vague pro-worker veneer that is at the same time offset by a lot of pro-business ("innovation", "future technologies", etc) language.
Just an example: in the party's programme they go to great lengths to explain that the Bundeswehr should not follow US interests (i.e. anti-NATO without committing to an explicit position of leaving NATO), should not maintain presences in foreign countries (i.e. no participation in joint operations), should not receive funding that is offset with cuts to social welfare (i.e. less funding?) but must also be "equipped appropriately" to defend Germany (i.e. more funding?). This reads more like a political Rorschach test than a political position: you can either interpret it as being anti-NATO, pro-Russia and asking for cuts to military spending or as being isolationist and asking for more accountability in military spending or as supporting the idea of a European military organization as a counter-balance to foreign interests or ... and so on.
I don't know what it is but I don't have the feeling I'd get a straight answer from her or her supporters either.
+1 for RPG in a Box, my 10yo loves it. RPG in a box provides everything to start with simple games (map editor, visual scripting, voxel editor, sound editor, ...), and the minecraft-like/retro style helps managing the kid's expectations. And there are a bunch of great tutorials on youtube.
If you look into the actual GDPR, you will find the phrase "data subjects who are in the Union", which are "natural persons", for whom the data protection laws apply.
reply