this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
260 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
60350 readers
4166 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So... we're just doing blatant bribery out in the open now?
Cool. Cool, cool, cool.
The Supreme Court, who are corrupt and take bribes, ruled that bribes are legal. Also that even if they weren't, the law doesn't apply to the President.
This still doesn't fall within their rules. The bribe has to be paid after service for it to be legal.
So for example, if you're a purchasing agent for the army and you have to buy new canvas tents. A manufacturer could tell you if you make the award, they will personally pay you $20 per tent purchased. But they supposedly can't come with 20k in hand and say here you go! Now I get the award for 10,000 tents.
You’re correct, this is the even better kind of legal bribery: lobbying. “Donating” to a cause for favorable rulings later
Seems this is a common thing. Found this and also Claude (the LLM) tells me it goes very far back and kinda got very big around Reagan's time. Allegedly Obama had some restrictions on his first term, but these were lifted on second term, but I haven't bothered to verify that.
However, the answer is yes. Just that it seems to be nothing new.
Humanity is fucking doomed.
Hey, at least some people are citing their sources.
How often do people say stuff like that without telling others where it came from? It's easy enough to accept things as true if they sound reasonable. Having a source means that grain of salt is already there.
Giving a LLM as a source is like giving your hair dresser as a source for things not related to hair dressing, because LLMs are trained on random people's online posts mixed in with actual knowledgeable people's posts.
Saying they got info from a LLM makes them less credible that someone who might actually know what they are talking about. They basically admit they don't have the ability to think for themselves and are just trying to promote using LLMs.
I think a lot of people are missing the point, but the commenter that replied to you got it.
What I'm saying is that many people are happy to BS and repeat things that they've read or heard as if it were fact. Meanwhile they did get it from their hairdresser. But because they repeated it with confidence, someone else would then repeat it because they read it on the internet from someone who seems to know what they're talking about.
The cycle continues.
But if people say "I heard from my hairdresser/LLM", then people know to take it with a grain of salt, or will call someone out on it.
I'm not saying the LLM is a good source, nor am I saying it's good when someone uses one as a source. I'm saying it's good when someone mentions that an LLM is their source for something they're saying.
It's not a good source, but knowing they got it from there is useful information.
Thank you for getting what I meant, lol