Thanks for bringing this up, it's really needed.

Your example is just one of many I've seen. The entire instance seems to be engaged in an opinion shaping campaign where only this gross mix of Western doomerism with Russia/China-glorifying fascism is allowed to thrive.

I don't know how to best deal with such indoctrination chambers. Their members become completely divorced from reality and there's no way to pull them back from the brink because anything you could say to that effect gets moderator-deleted. Yet vice versa, they can freely spread their propaganda and engage in "raids" on other instances.

Typical past ceasefires or truces with Russia:

• +0 Hours: Shelling stops on both sides, occasional gunfire erupts in places.
• +1 Hours: Russians rush supplies to their troops.
• +3 Hours: Russians violate truce and try to gain as much ground as possible in a surprise attack.

.

Fool me once...

Disclaimer: I wondered the same, since 2014, and this is what I puzzled together for myself, read it with that in mind!

I believe a lot of it can be traced back to the wealthy and to conservative think tanks / media control by right wing moguls.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, conservatives were perceived as well-off business people trying to protect their own wealth (I've read that people used to say things like "I'm not rich enough to vote Republican" or children shouting "last one in the house is a dirty Republican"). You can even see old movies dunk on conservatives (i.e. take Stanley Kubrick's "2010: The Year we Make Contact" (1984), at the beginning, with the satellite dish tower, the protagonist noses off about reactionaries being in control of congress, thus leading the country towards war).

This is the rather extreme election result from 1964:

Because liberals mostly were Democratic Party voters, Republicans and their wealthy donors tried to alter public perception of liberals (i.e. make it undesirable for their Republican indoctrinatees to be liberal). This included taking over the media (and Reagan conveniently cancelling the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which gave political bias in the media some guard rails), then painting liberals as all things undesirable: arrogant, weak, clueless, leeches, etc.

Having a "hate object" worked so well that they kept capitalizing on it. Much of it was/is just slinging sh*t against the wall and looking what sticks, but think tanks are indeed looking at what sticks, so successful patterns get repeated. Some of these successful patterns I can see are: installing a victim complex in conservatives (feeling their back against the wall, they lash out easier, ensuring anyone talking about conservatives is conditioned to use very soft gloves) and the two-year bogeyman, often trying to capture, redefine and vilify some prior existing concept (thus, when the campaign hits, indoctrinatees can find lots of "proof" online of this thing existing).

For example, social justice used to be universally agreed on as a good thing, woke used to mean remaining aware of systemic inequalities, now they make conservatives pop an artery. This has been going for a while (the "hate object" over time has been rock music, hippies, metal music, supposed satan worshippers, pen and paper games, paganism+atheism, video games, social justice activists, cancel culture, black lives matter, critical race theory, wokeness, ...)

And I think, yes, your perception is spot on. This is, for example, what I get when I search for "anti-conservative t-shirts" (if it's too tiny, try it yourself - they're all anti-liberal):

TL;DR: conservatives are intentionally made and kept angry. It keeps them unified against a bigger enemy (see Genghis Gambit), drives them to go vote and prevents voters from switching sides even if they do not like some things the conservatives are doing. Add to that Russia amplifying this division like there's no tomorrow. They're installing this hate for liberals both in tankies and in far-right bigots (and, as far as I can tell, anti-liberal sentiment is pushed into Russian society, too).

So... this AI company gets gaming teens to "donate" their computing power, rather than pay for render farms / GPU clouds?

And then oblivious parents pay the power bills, effectively covering the computing costs of the AI porn company?

Sounds completely ethical to me /s.

If you were alive (and online) during the 90s, you may remember the banter between Microsoft and General Motors:

From https://crysa.fzu.cz/ondra/documents/cars_like_windows.html (the only online copy I could find)

Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five-dollar cars that get 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

[...]

7. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car error" warning light.

8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.

9. The airbag system would ask "Are You Sure?" before going off.

10. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grabbed a hold of the radio antenna.

30 years later, some of those jokes are finally becoming reality, thanks to Tesla.

This would truly be the cherry on top.

• Questionable Burisma payments? May never have happened.
• Laptop someone identifying as Hunter Biden gave to a blind, pro-Trump repair shop owner? Might not even exist.
• E-Mails published by the New York Post? A mix of real e-mails with ones that could not be validated.
• Cloned hard drive handed to the New York Post? Tampered with, real e-mails and pictures mixed with possibly planted things.

I had assumed that at least the initial whistleblower report was in good faith.

I'm expecting a really nasty autumn this year. A big chunk of Russia's campaign against Europe is held up by Ukraine and they badly need a stooge US president again.

Musk also opened Twitter's doors wide for state-sponsored manipulation and agitation campaigns. All protections are offline and the teams are gone, under the guise of free speech.

Ist irgendwie schon zum Standardargument geworden um solche Bewegungen zu diskreditieren. Ziemlich ausgenudelt und jedem drittklassigen Politiker schiesst es inzwischen aus dem Popo wenn es um Klimademonstranten oder Antifaschisten geht.

Abgesehen davon dass es Unfug ist, ist es auch noch ein klarer Fall von "Boten angreifen statt die Nachricht zu widerlegen."

Oh no, he found out about the Transsylvania plans. But I assume Wokesconsin, Gaybraska and Lesbiana are still a go?

Is this a case of "here, LLM trained on millions of lines of text from cold war novels, fictional alien invasions, nuclear apocalypses and the like, please assume there is a tense diplomatic situation and write the next actions taken by either party" ?

But it's good that the researchers made explicit what should be clear: these LLMs aren't thinking/reasoning "AI" that is being consulted, they just serve up a remix of likely sentences that might reasonably follow the gist of the provided prior text ("context"). A corrupted hive mind of fiction authors and actions that served their ends of telling a story.

That being said, I could imagine /some/ use if an LLM was trained/retrained on exclusively verified information describing real actions and outcomes in 20th century military history. It could serve as brainstorming aid, to point out possible actions or possible responses of the opponent which decision makers might not have thought of.

...and, hear me out, that will be perfect for keeping messages untraceable by the government. Every single of those 200,000 computers will have full copies of all the messages ever transmitted, unencrypted, but they'll never be able to tell who wrote them and who they were for.

The problem I have with the "hypocrisy" argument is that, here, it's used as a cheap attack on the messenger.

As in the old meme:

(poor peasant doing labor: "we should improve society somewhat", grinning contemporary person: "yet you participate in society, curious! I am very intelligent.")

I can accept it when influential people, even those that cause a whole lot of emissions themselves, advocate for climate programs. We won't get anywhere if, whoever wants to talk about the environment, first has to become a cave dweller and give up their reach before they're allowed to speak up.

On the other hand, when Fox News, a channel that generally panders to the coal lobby, car industry and oil barons, suddenly becomes concerned about someone's CO2 emissions just to serve up another smear, that is hypocrisy, plain and simple.