everything I posted was in response to you; nothing is random.

>confused informations

Just saying they're confused is meaningless; if you think I am wrong about something, feel free to give actual rebuttals.

>tentative

This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word.

What does this mean?

> is clearly an unbased accusation.

"Israel creates fake think tank" is the headline. What is a "think tank"? What distinguishes a real one from a fake one? Does "the Hanover Institute" claim to be a think tank?

The author does not answer any of these questions, only saying "At a glance, the Hanover Institute for Public Policy looks like a new think tank dedicated to Israel/Palestine": in other words, he glanced at it, decided it looked like a think tank, then decided it wasn't a "real" one, and then went from there. That is very much the author's framing instead of something grounded in objectivity.

>The article clearly explain the information poisoning

The article says "Others refer to this practice of influencing artificial intelligence as 'LLM poisoning.'"

But the Anthropic paper that it cites to support this claim never discusses persuasive content, propaganda, or credibility-mimicking material at all; it uses "poisoning" for a technically distinct attack class. So the citation doesn't support the claim as written.

>stop polluting this thread in an organized and selfish self supporting way. so typical

What do you mean by this? How am I organized? Why is it selfish to criticize an article?

The headline sounds sensational, then if you actually read the article you realize the author just made up his own framing entirely, or he just discovered that AEO and GEO exists and thinks it's sinister?

I thought maybe there were going to be some markers about how they're targeting LLMs specifically there was nothing like that.

And if you go to https://hanoverinstitute.com/llms.txt ...honestly, you could maybe form a critique about implying to LLMs that your wagon is hitched to the Department of Justice on line 5! But this guy didn't even seem to find this file...

When I was typing my post I thought about billboards for divorce attorneys: I am happily married so those billboards aren't for me, but this fact alone wasn't enough to alter the idea behind my post. And I guess I should also note that I did not demand that all billboards cater exclusively to my interests, that is obviously unworkable nonsense.

So let me try to refine:

Public advertising is...public. "of or concerning the people as a whole"; "exposed to general view", to pick two dictionary definitions. Billboards and stadiums occupy public spaces, places you walk or drive by all the time, so one could reasonably intuit that they should be representative of the people who inhabit those spaces.

Analogies don't usually help, but let me try: If a city had 90% of its inhabitants speaking German, you would expect most of the signage and advertising to be in German. An Italian speaker would arrive in the city and just feel that the place was...different, not for them. (It would not be "entitled self-importance" to say so.)

If a city was 90% German speakers, 10% French speakers, and the signage and advertising was all in French - what would the visiting Italian speaker make of that? Would a group of Germans in town rightly be accused of "entitled self-importance" for asking that the world around them is accessible?

But there is something a little...alienating about advertising that's not meant for you.

It's a dumb example, but in Pittsburgh the football stadium was renamed from Heinz Field to Acrisure Stadium.

Of course, "Three Rivers Stadium", the name of the previous building, was best. It's not a name that tries to sell you something. But if you must sell something, "Heinz" is extremely good: it sells products for everyone, and it has historical roots in the area. Of the people, for the people.

But Acrisure? I've looked it up a few times and I still can't remember exactly what it is. Business services or insurance or something like that. And I'm sure that both Acrisure and the Steelers don't really care that I don't know what it is, because it's not really for the vast majority of the 65,000 people who show up on a Sunday to cheer for the team.

That's...weird.

>Covenant Aviation Security was another early winner, getting $19 million for unspecified airport security services in 2005. Since then, it’s gotten an ever-increasing amount, including $773 million in 2021 to support security screening at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) until the end of this year; taxpayers have spent about $1.5 billion on that company, mainly for security at SFO. That airport is held out as the exemplar of how well private companies manage security, which labor leaders say is the case because Covenant workers at SFO are unionized; as a result, they are better paid than security contractors elsewhere and can more strongly influence practices. But even so, the FBI found that some of Covenant’s security personnel helped smugglers traffic cocaine between 2013 and 2014 by allowing them “to pass through the x-ray machine at a security checkpoint line without adequately screening the luggage for explosives, incendiaries, weapons, or other threats to security,” as the Department of Justice wrote.

Just hard to get anything useful out of this article. Privatization returns us to a dangerous past, but we already privatize, and it's really good, but it's only because of unions, but despite that it's still bad, but I guess it must not be too bad because we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11, which is the reason why it's bad to privatize.

> mary is 24

> 8 years apart: ann is 16 now, when ann was 12 mary was 20

> 6 years apart: ann is 18 now, when ann was 12 mary was 18

> 4 years apart: ann is 20 now, when ann was 12 mary was 16

Concretely: if the author's perception that a capitalist/calvinist fusion robbed us of/distorted something is true, that he could have existed in a society outside of this shadow in a way he'd find acceptable...that's a very different story than him longing for a world that has never existed.

>Even just capitalism with more regulation and safety nets (the ones most countries implement don't work very well) would suffice here.

You speak very matter-of-factly, and you might be right, but in reality this is only a hypothesis! Maybe more regulation has a tipping point at which it starts to do more harm than good. Maybe if safety nets are too strong they create perverse incentives.

They're a good fit on your "one week" timescale.

[0]: https://www.readtangle.com/

I guess this is the basis of my critique: the author seems to be writing as though capitalism is robbing him of some ideal that would otherwise exist: invoking the so-called "Protestant work ethic" to describe a system that took over the world and made us all worse off.

That doesn't feel right to me because I don't think previous economic systems did better at protecting the vulnerable. (But I'm not sure, that's why I framed my comment the way I did!)

Most replies to me are framed more as either "do what Europe does" (but the author lives in Europe!) or "we haven't gotten there yet" - which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.

The author of this post apparently lives in Porto.

(I think about the "worst system, except for all the other systems" quote often)

Is he influenced by people in the room? Sure. But to say that with the intent of it being a rebuttal to what I offered completely misses the point.

https://x.com/omnologos/status/1870847422454280672

If forts count as castles, at least do Fort Pitt, which has the blockhouse functional.

Anyways - this is a fun project and it should continue!

(Given that he audited classes for years, this very much strikes me as a class project based on his interests...)