chicken

I doubt the school administrators who would be buying this thing or the people trying to make money off it have really thought that far ahead or care whether or not it does that, but it would definitely be one of its main effects.

why are you judging peoples countries based on your view that governments shouldn’t force people to do things?

Because that's what this thread is for, sharing thoughts on compulsory voting.

in fact you’re judging peoples’ lived experience and opinions based entirely on your own narrow views of government

Rather I'm saying that just because people approve of something doesn't mean it's good. If you think governments forcing people to do things is something to be embraced in general, and your lived experience with it is positive, that's your opinion, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that opinion is right.

yknow what else is good? taxes, fire services, disaster response, and dare i say - public healthcare and ambulances… all things im mandated to pay for along with everyone around me in case we ever need them

Agreed, but I think you're papering over some important nuance in the position I'm expressing here. I see this sort of compulsory taxation and what it buys as an example of something where the need outweighs the harm. It is ok because of how important these services are, and despite the lesser harm of making people slightly less free. If all taxes rather went to building golden statues of the president, they would be bad.

My argument against compulsory voting is premised on the idea that reduced freedom is a harm, and must be justified by some good that sufficiently outweighs it. I haven't made an argument supporting that premise, but I think it's a sufficiently intuitive and popular sentiment that I shouldn't have to. If you disagree with that premise, I think that just means we have very different values.

There are also countries with mandatory military service for all citizens where people there have a positive impression of the program and feel national pride about it, but I don't think that necessarily means it is a good practice. I think anything the government is forcing people to do should meet a high bar of not being able to accomplish the same thing any other way, because freedom is important, whether or not people know to value it.

There are less coercive ways to remove barriers to voting. Some US states send everyone ballots in the mail and you have a long time to fill them out, which removes the need to go to a specific place on a specific day; all you have to do is fill it out and put it back in the mailbox. I think that kind of thing is a better option. There are situations where there are strong reasons civic participation has to be mandatory, like jury duty, but if the only real problem mandatory voting is meant to solve is life circumstances leading people to not bother voting, there are a lot of other plausibly effective steps that can be taken instead and it isn't clearly necessary to do something that invasive.

imo seems inappropriately formal

I don't understand this attitude. If an argument is good, why wouldn't it be valuable or matter? I think it would benefit people a lot if everyone put more thought and consideration into their arguments, especially in the direction of conveying some original thought that isn't just a remix of the same tired propaganda style rhetoric everyone's heard a million times before. "Winning" doesn't matter, but collaboratively thinking about things with other people matters, and a good way to do that is through argument.

But the premise of the comic is that the politicians are themselves pressured by the voters to represent positions they think are insane (and are actually insane?) and hope won't actually become law, yet they do become law because the conspiracy to pretend to do something while doing nothing fails. With direct democracy you would assume those same laws would pass for the same reasons, not a different outcome.

Is this an anti-democracy comic?

The output for a given input cannot be independently calculated as far as I know, particularly when random seeds are part of the input.

The system gives a probability distribution for the next word based on the prompt, which will always be the same for a given input. That meets the definition of deterministic. You might choose to add non-deterministic rng to the input or output, but that would be a choice and not something inherent to how LLMs work. Random 'seeds' are normally used as part of deterministically repeatable rng. I'm not sure what you mean by "independently" calculated, you can calculate the output if you have the model weights, you likely can't if you don't, but that doesn't affect how deterministic it is.

The so what means trying to prevent certain outputs based on moral judgements isn’t possible. It wouldn’t really be possible if you could get in there with code and change things unless you could write code for morality, but it’s doubly impossible given you can’t.

The impossibility of defining morality in precise terms, or even coming to an agreement on what correct moral judgment even is, obviously doesn't preclude all potentially useful efforts to apply it. For instance since there is a general consensus that people being electrocuted is bad, electrical cables normally are made with their conductive parts encased in non-conductive material, a practice that is successful in reducing how often people get electrocuted. Why would that sort of thing be uniquely impossible for LLMs? Just because they are logic processing systems that are more grown than engineered? Because they are sort of anthropomorphic but aren't really people? The reasoning doesn't follow. What people are complaining about here is that AI companies are not making these efforts a priority, and it's a valid complaint because it isn't the case that these systems are going to be the same amount of dangerous no matter how they are made or used.

They are deterministic though, in a literal sense. Rather their behavior is undefined. And yes, a LLM is not a person and it's not quite accurate to talk about them knowing or understanding things. So what though? Why would that be any sort of evidence that research efforts into AI safety are futile? This is at least as much of an engineering problem as a philosophy problem.

Coyotes are pretty small though, I think cattle would still be more dangerous.

Seems broken

We're unable to submit your comments to congress because of a problem on our end. We apologize for the inconvenience. Please try again later.