My specific question I guess is, what exactly is "AI" defined as here, and what is the evidence for its role in being "decisive"?

In particular I'm looking for more information relating to the claims in this paragraph. I can't see in the declassified documents any discussion of AI. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something, though

Am I right to be reading the AI component in the russian influence in the Romanian election as mainly algorithmic? Or is there evidence that specifically generative AI played a major role? Would love to read more about that if so

Wow, is that where that comes from? Average brain size and primate group size...?

I might personally pick easier myths to debunk. I do love the catty [sic], though:

It seems reasonable to me, a simple man, to include inheritance in the original $5 million estimate from PPP. If the richest %1, who each have over $10 million, have at least $5 mil in inheritance + interest, that would indeed seem to support the supposedly debunked “progressive myth”

Do you have any particular person or piece of writing you could recommend that you think makes this point well? I find it hard to sift through the noise on this issue.

I was very troubled to see people start consulting Grok on factual issues (asking "Grok, is this true?"), but then kind of stunned at how reasonable Grok actually seems to be, certainly relative to the average X user.

There are weird instances, where LLMs are wrong in really non-human ways, and those seem to be most dangerous. I'm thinking of cases where LLMs hallucinate very plausible sounding entities like journals, articles, people etc. That's likely to get better as the technology improves, though

We have a lot of tools for dealing with unreliable human communicators, and we can apply these to LLMs. Some people may have an inflated few of LLM capabilties right now, but will presumably adjust those with time

fair

People seem to be claiming:

1. There is no anti-baby senitment on the left (obviously untrue, in my personal experience!!), and/or

2. Any policy targeted at increasing births is overreaching. But the suggested policies will be set in any case, and can be set to support greater or fewer births.

Matt Bruenig blog on this:
mattbruenig.com/2023/03/05/e...

Oh I'm so silly I didn't even realize you made this! I thought you were just posting it. It's very cool

I think it’s mostly a classic case of people getting mad at a headline and not reading the article, plus extreme unrelated Liz Bruenig hatred (which itself is hard to explain).

lol. For real though ? Any thoughts . I’m genuinely asking xx

What specifically do you see as the issue in this excerpt?

Where does she claim she is fine with this? I understood her as suggesting pretty tame social democratic policies to make having kids easier.

What is everyone upset about here? Genuine question.