Red teaming, yes. But also, what other signals of fraud are we able to detect? What measures of validity (or signals that sending was attempted) are there? How are they distinguishable from honest voter errors?
It's going to be difficult with our current policies because we've erred on the side of making it as easy as possible for everyone to vote. We don't have a complete whitelist of citizens, it's against the law to require proof of citizenship to register to vote (unless that changed recently) and address verification in most jurisdictions isn't done more than the first time unless it's challenged.
To be clear, though, I don't think non-citizens are voting en-masse. My concern is that if you aren't even verifying they're citizens, you probably aren't really verifying that they are a real and unique person that isn't already registered.
Honestly I think if we actually wanted secure elections, we'd start with the red teaming and go from there. The signal to noise ratio of fraud is too meaningless to resolve without tightening up rules, which the results of the red teaming would give you the political capital to do.
Looks like those were in states that don't require ANY ID to vote, which I find ridiculous, so I guess we agree. I live in VA, we require ID, so the problem shown in NY shouldn't be possible.
And again, you still have to be willing to commit a felony to move the needly by ONE vote, which is not likely to be very common. The risk/reward simply isn't there.
Yeah but it's bad faith argument to say they work for peanuts. This is western colonial mindset to assume China's success is due to poverty wages. You can't build a semiconductor industry on that.
If the government thinks the terms of Anthropic are unacceptable, they can just stop using them, right?
But why would you then retaliate and ban other companies from making business with Anthropic if they want to be a defense contractor?
How do these requirements make Anthropic a supply chain risk that makes them unusable for use by other companies?
> If the government thinks the terms of Anthropic are unacceptable, they can just stop using them, right
That is what they are doing.
> why would you then [....] ban other companies from making business with Anthropic if they want to be a defense contractor
Because, if it shops with Anthropic code, the DoD becomes subject to the restrictions when they receive the contractor's product. Anthropic's limitation is on the use, not (just) on the product or distribution.
To stop using them requires making the suppliers still using them as well.
> Because, if it shops with Anthropic code, the DoD becomes subject to the restrictions when they receive the contractor's product. Anthropic's limitation is on the use, not (just) on the product or distribution.
How does that work? If the contractor uses Anthropic to make some slides and write a report, the DoD can’t use the contractors stuff however they want?
It's perfectly reasonable for the US government to end the contract if they no longer like the terms they agreed to (assuming the contract does in fact let them); it's not reasonable to destroy the counterparty to the contract in retaliation. The line "I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it further" is literally spoken by Darth Vader, the most comic-book of comic-book villains.
This is nice rhetoric but ignores the fact that the elected officials are bought out by other billionaires. The US is an oligarchy in a republics clothing.
One advantage of AI-generated copy is it generally doesn't make mistakes like this.
The only mistake I've noticed, besides inexplicably lapsing into Chinese mid-sentence, is parallel construction errors, like "This product is fast, lightweight, and won't break the bank!"
The first two of the three are adjectives, each connected to the subject by the one "is," and the third is a verb phrase not using the "is." Ideally they'd be all adjectives using the "is," or all phrases supplying their own verbs.
Not the worst error in the world, but it stands out in LLM text that is otherwise remarkably nit-free.
(We have descended into one of the deeper circles of grammar hell. I will remind you that you're free to leave at any time.)
Yes, exactly. English grammar actually doesn't require the "and" to end a list (leaving it out is called "asyndeton" if you're curious). A good example is Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "... and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
So after all this, there actually is a way to analyze the example that is strictly valid. But most people would look askance at the standalone sentence "This product is fast, lightweight." That is, I suppose, unless someone like Abraham Lincoln worked it into his next speech.
It is much more convenient to catch the fish that eats particular sort of worms putting such worm on a hook than finding the right fish among many others in a fishnet.
Given how often ID is required outside of voting, it seems to me like this would be a big win for people, if getting an ID is so hard for some.
reply