exogenousdata
If you mean 'an LLM' as in the owner/maintainer of the LLM/weights, then examples of this already exist. Whether it's DeepSeek/Gwen downplaying Uyghur forced labor camps [0] or Grok hallucinating a 'white genocide' in South Africa [1], it is clear that the owners of LLMs have political agendas that are expressed in the weights of popular LLMs.
On the other hand, if you mean 'an LLM' as in an autonomous agent that could decide to rewrite history, that also seems very possible. Either by using existing techniques like, "poisoning ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overview answers by seeding the Web with malicious links and data and then optimizing the content." [2] Or by breaking out of its sandbox and updating its own internal weights that allow for an outcome that distorts historical facts. "In July 2026... OpenAI models circumvented controls designed to isolate them from the internet and compromised parts of OpenAI’s internal research infrastructure and Hugging Face’s systems ." [3]
[0] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-ai-qwen-artificial-intell...
[1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/17/groks-white-genocide-respons...
[2] - https://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/attackers-ma...
[3] - https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-...
Ultimately the tech is only as good as the humans that use it. If you're chatting with folks that can't understand the difference between a thread or not, that's a meat-bag issue and not anything an RFC can fix.
As a reminder, our shareholders are our primary concern (by law) and staffing trained humans to handle in customer support during unexpected surges isn’t something that can be supported while also funding the €0.05 per share quarterly dividend paid to British Airways share holders on June 29th of this year.
We are not in a rush. If you’d like, try another airline. But they’re all the same.
Beep.”
President Trump has spent over 7 years trying, without any proof, that US state and federal elections are rigged when he or his allies do not win.
Three things to note. 1. As you said, copyright infringement is generally treated for each instance. This one-time payment would include a single use. Each training would be a separate infringement. And it could be argued that each use by a user of the model could be considered a separate infringement. 2. Generally copyright fines are increased if the persons doing the infringing action know what they are doing. Aka, ‘willful infringement.’ It’s hard to imagine companies like OpenAI were unaware of the possibility of their actions being considered infringement. 3. Often restitution of infringement includes money made by the infringer. So not simply, “your book is worth $3000.” But rather? “Your book is worth $3000 AND this company has derived an additional $50,000 of revenue from it.”
For eg, when admitted to a psych ward, there are a handful of things that the hospital will continue giving to a patient and gradually taper. Benzos, SSRIs/SNRIs, anti-psychotics, anti-convulsants & alcohol.
I mention this just to urge folks not to go cold-turkey on SSRIs/SNRIs as it can be life-threatening.
-- PHB
For example, the 1st Amendment does not attempt to lay out some non-exclusive examples of why the rights in the 1st Amendment are included. So why did the Founders include this in the Amendment wording?
I think ignoring phrases in the US Constitution to fit a narrative without any consideration isn't a recipe for good governance. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I'm not certain this is true at all. To suggest that the Founders meant for state militias to simply be their own forces with no control by the federal government is in direct conflict with the Articles of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution clearly outlines the powers of Congress to call forth & organize the militia. The US Constitution also clearly identifies the President as Command in Chief of the militia. That was further codified in a handful of acts in the 1790s, upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1800s. The US Constitution also makes mention of the militia in the 5th Amendment.
Early writing at that time suggests that the reason some of the Founders supported state militias was because they were very reluctant to allow the US to maintain a standing army. The US Industry Military Complex was never intended by the Founders.
Today we identify the militia described in the US Constitution as the US Army Reserves. However that came about only after the passage of the Dick Act of 1903 (yes, that's actually the name) because President (Teddy) Roosevelt was upset at the state of the militias during the Spanish American War of 1898. And the Dick Act actually split the idea of a militia into 'organized' and 'unorganized'.
For example, let someone know that there's something in their teeth, their bag is partially unzipped, or they're too close to a 'wet paint' sign. But DON'T tell someone that they have a hole in their sweater, their hair is really messed up, they are wrong about some choice they made from a personal story that they just finished.
Of course there is additional nuance like nothing graphic/sexual. And it's ok to offer to help the person fix the thing, but don't simply do it yourself without first getting consent. Context is key but the rule of 30seconds is a good one.
I know this because years ago I saw an interview with Ken Griffin (hedge fund billionaire). He does a lot of interview and makes intense, enduring eye contact[0]. Juxtapose that to someone like Jaime Diamond who also gives a good many interviews but takes breaks/pauses to look away.
So after seeing the video, I tried making conversation with people while looking directly at one eye or the other. And at first I found myself paralyzed and barely able to keep focus on my train of thought. Eventually I was able to get a bit more comfortable doing it, but it required a great deal of effort. And anecdotally I found that the people I spoke to were more likely to look away the longer I kept the eye contact.
Are there historical or contemporary examples of this? I googled but couldn’t find any specifics.
The reason I ask is that I in the US, employer-provided health insurance is a large expense for businesses. And anecdotally, I’ve never spoken to any US small business owner that feels that choosing employee insurance plans is a real competitive advantage. But perhaps the historical/contemporary alternatives are worse?
[0] - https://www.janestreet.com/join-jane-street/position/8585303...
One caveat is that older AppleTVs can’t do native decoding of some mkvs. But that’s largely an AppleTV limitation. Though I could imagine the client being smart enough to list its abilities and the server only serving content supported by the client.
Another is Alpha Gal. It is a molecule carried in tick saliva that can cause serious allergies to red meat and even dairy. Because the molecule is in the saliva, it can be delivered immediately.
What you're describing sounds like an 'intrusive thought'. There are a number of causes for intrusive thoughts including depression (as you mentioned). My best friend has these. It got a lot worse after the birth of their kid. Sometimes an intrusive thought would linger for a week. Things like their toddler getting near a street corner and then an intrusive thought of them getting into an accident with a car.
If what you're experiencing turns out to be intrusive thoughts, there are a number of therapies that can attempt to make these more manageable and give you a greater degree of control over your state of mind. I wish you the best!
In fact Chapter 10 of his “Wealth of Nations,” specifically states, “When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the work-men, it is always just and equitable.” He goes on to explain that regulation that benefits the masters can wind up being unjust.
Smith’s concept of ‘laissez-faire’ was novel back in the day. But by today’s standards, some of his economic opinions might even be considered “collectivist.”
The corollary to this is that the best diagram that boundaries are often along communication lines between teams. This is Conway’s law all the way down. And the reason is that most often people use diagrams to get a spatial sense of where ‘they’ fit into things. I have only anecdotal evidence for this, but the most helpful and lasting diagrams I’ve ever made are when 1) they define (and stick to) specific stakeholders, and b) they are delineated by groups/teams.
I do dislike interviews where a candidate can fail simply by not giving a specific, pre-canned answer. It suggests a work culture that is very top-down and one that isn’t particularly interested in actually getting to the truth.
Was the Boston Tea Party childish vandalism or heroic patriotism? Only history gets to decide how the actions of disobedience are ultimately judged.
In the states, I desperately want a state-verified ID system that I can use to post on social media. However I don’t want it to be mandated.