Funny, my opinion is the opposite. Excel is a much better spreadsheet than Word is a word processor or than PowerPoint is a presentation tool.
Of course it’s got quirks and unfortunate relics of its long history, but I reach for it willingly, and I can’t say that about the rest of the Office suite.
There is no position lacking bias. The question of bias against me is a political position not an epistemological problem that can be eliminated. I see authors that are unaware of things like context and relativity.
When ppl say there is an absolute truth that we need to stick to, they are slipping in a totalitarian political position and calling it truth. It runs against the whole premise of nature and life, which has rested for 4 billion years on: Alternative competing positions, seeing which one works best.
There is such a thing as lack of bias in statistical outcomes, right? E.g. fair dice? Measuring it may be probabilistic, but it exists.
What I'd like to see is if the LLM would exhibit the same behavior wrt other types of predictive selections. For example, rather than choosing people from four tribes, choosing flower seeds from four packets, or choosing lottery tickets from four machines.
No. It's a shorthand for contextual bias. The context is the tiny window of the statistic. When it's applied to a real world situation, ppl promote the 'unbiasedness' into a real situation that isn't constrained by it.
Bias cannot be avoided in any information, because it's always a position of what is relevant and in what presented order. The only unbiased thing is nature itself in its immediate instantaneous totality.
Are you sure? I mean, yes of course tiny sample windows have this effect. But it seems at least possible that LLM is more prone to this effect when making estimates of human performance or behavior than when doing it for other topics.
In any case I feel the paper is interesting but almost begging to be misinterpreted.
I was baffled by this because the rightmost square didn’t seem to have any pieces where the letter would fit vertically — the unplaced pieces had a border which made it impossible to see which might.
At home? 100%. Out in the world? Very much depends.
I was just in a stall where the inside of door had a pictogram forbidding users from standing on the edge of the bowl and squatting. I assume this might be for visitors from countries where squatting is common.
Point being, you just never know what random members of the public will do with a door to hide behind.
Here’s how I think it makes sense: accountability for unethical behavior arrives via more or less direct routes depending on who you are.
The more you look like a high-status leader, the longer it will take, and the more likely it arrives as a fine or a suspended sentence followed by an eventual redemption story published in the New Yorker or equivalent.
But targeting other high-status people ejects you from the white glove treatment.
I don't think it's that simple. If Bernie Sanders were an unknown, but had stabbed Iryna Zarutska on video and walked off saying he got that white girl, I'm pretty sure he would've still gone to jail and been subject to the death penalty. It's more than high-status people generally don't do that sort of thing, because you probably didn't get where you were if you were that unintelligent, violent, and impulsive.
In fact, in that exact case the chap who did it was treated far too leniently by the justice system and they've un-"Progressived" the law in some ways to make it so he would never be able to do that again. Which is progress. Or at least the undoing of Progress.
I really don't get the big deal with GDRP. Consider what you are storing and why you are storing. Decide if those things align. If they do not, well don't implement that in first place. And I suppose LLMs are perfect for the boiler plate documentation so not big effort there either.
Somethings are big more challenging like getting the data for customer when asking or deleting it when reasonable. But as user I also like at least having that option. It is least any business can do.
The thing is American businesses try to read the entire thing in excruciating detail and proactively comply with every possibility they can think of while European businesses just make a good faith effort to comply with the spirit, and if an authority tells them they can't do something, they stop doing it.
Based on this behavior I'd have to infer American courts are punitive oriented (so you must never slip up) while European courts are resolution oriented (so good faith is enough and stop worrying so much).
My inference also explains why American businesses don't listen to European courts until the fines get big. They get some small penalty on their first violation and think "that's all?" and continue the violation, then four or five cases later the penalty gets big enough to make them comply. See Apple with the interop rulings.
GDPR is reasonable, maybe too weak regulation of big businesses with lots of data.
The problem is that it applies to small organisations, even non-profits, that do not trade that information which is proportionately a much bigger burden. Real examples of organisations I have come across who have to comply with GDPR include a local community theatre, a parish church etc. They are keep fairly simple information, and not exchanging it with anyone, but they still have to put effort into ensuring compliance. They are pretty good and ethical anyway - the theatre recently impressed me when I found out that if you give them medical information in case of emergency they put it in a sealed envelope and no one opens it unless there is an actually emergency that requires it (i.e. you keel over there!).
> Real examples of organisations I have come across who have to comply with GDPR include a local community theatre, a parish church etc. They are keep fairly simple information, and not exchanging it with anyone, but they still have to put effort into ensuring compliance.
Yeah, and that is precisely where you want something like the GDPR to be as well!
Large corporations are one thing, they have compliance departments, but so, so many local organizations have gotten hacked or data exfiltrated because "why do software and hardware updates when everything is working" or due to incompetence ("cc all"). GDPR finally gave the younger crowd some leverage to get the old guard to do things at least somewhat decently.
> so many local organizations have gotten hacked or data exfiltrated because "why do software and hardware updates when everything is working"
They have a lot less information. Consider my too examples. What do they record electronically? Name and address. The church will have relationship to people such as spouse and children, which are in public records anyway. A few details of sons preferences and involvements. The theatre is even more public - if you act its publicised. They might both have records of tax deductible donations. They do not have unique identifiers such as appear on ID documents or NI (UK tax and social security) numbers. They do not correlate this with outside sources. There is very little to leak.
Well, wait until you are at the receiving end. It can get nasty pretty quickly.
What does each one of your systems store exactly? Do they allow configuration of reasonable data retention policies for PII? What do your systems log? How do you make sure that only the minimum amount of PII (including user IP addresses) is logged and that the covered logs are destroyed at the end of a reasonable retention period?
How do you handle Data Subject Access Requests? Can you compile all the data related to that person in a reasonable time to send it to them?
How do you handle deletion requests? Can you name all the data storage that is affected if a deletion request comes in? Are your systems technically capable of deleting the data? What data is exempt (e.g. billing addresses can't just be deleted before the mandated archival period is over)? Do you maintain backups? Then how do you make sure that data covered by a deletion request is destroyed and stays gone even in the event of a backup recovery?
Nobody who wants to bootstrap a business wants to deal with any of this. It's an enormous time sink.
If there is one thing that is incredibly complex, it is fire codes - in no small part because these vary from town to town, or to be more precise, the height of their portable ladder trucks. Once you build higher than these, you have to plan for a second escape route.
That's not that bad of a thing if you work exclusively in one area... but good luck if you operate across the nation or, worse, internationally because everyone does things a liiiitle bit differently.
Have you ever been the responsible person for a public building, a big concert or anything of that ilk? Suuuuure, fire and work safety are easy peasy, uncomplicated and totally trivial compared to the GDPR. And the laws and regulations involved are so incredibly brief, well-written and stay consistent over a long time... o_O
/s
Even with a small pub that you run with your friend, you have to deal and comply with fire safety, toilet, public health and a whole lot of other codes.
> Nobody who wants to bootstrap a business wants to deal with any of this. It's an enormous time sink.
Indeed but it forces you to answer these questions and to think about them during the development process as well, maybe even enough to write decent unit and regression tests for anything authentication/authorization related before some security "researcher" siccs Claude Code or whatever on your API and pwns it.
You assume that the business is about developing software and will have a public facing API.
That's a very narrow perspective. The vast majority of businesses aren't this. Even a plumber who types up offers and invoices on a computer is subject to all of this mess.
> Even a plumber who types up offers and invoices on a computer is subject to all of this mess.
Yeah and that plumber has 1000s of customer names, addresses, phone numbers, mail addresses, in Europe maybe even SEPA Direct Debit data.
Not funny if that kind of stuff leaks, especially not if you're, say, a person with a public register block due to domestic violence or whatever (basically, one step before witness protection that gives you a whole new identity).
In Germany you have to keep your records for 8 years as a commercial entity, and 8 years is a lot of customers you deal with, if you work with private customers.
If your primary focus as an electrician, plumber or other tradesperson is SME or industry, of course, then there is far less customers.
Repeat customers, certainly, there's only so many of them you can have. I'm talking about small shops with 5-10 people heading out to service calls, and a lot of these is "throwaway" customers that need a water faucet changed or whatnot.
At least here in Germany, in most rental contracts the responsibilities are split between landlord and renter, with the landlord being responsible for the heating, the water mains and the large fusebox, but the renter has to deal with everything under the scope of "Kleinreparatur". Exchanging faucets and siphons, wall sockets, installing laundry machines and other appliances, installing lamps, that kind of stuff many people (like me) can DIY but other people (like a lot of my friends) can't or don't want to, and they call in the professionals for an hour or two. And these guys have like 4-6 service calls a day.
250 work days in a year assuming no weekends and no other vacation (because it makes a round number). 2000 work days in 8 years. You can't see how a plumber might see more than 0.5 customers per day?
If you can't answer the oh so complicated and nasty questions you raised, you have no business fucking around with people's personal data and it's a good thing if your business dies (would be even better if you get a slap in the neck and financially hurt for a bit - but not so much that your business fails - and you use the punishment as an impulse to rethink your ways and do better in the future. But how likely is that, given bone-headed positions like yours?!)
"I don't want to deal with it" is relatable and human - and one of the main reasons why potentially dangerous things are / have to be regulated.
> The problem is that it applies to small organisations, even non-profits, that do not trade that information which is proportionately a much bigger burden.
Eh?
Collect only the personal data you need (with permission) and keep it secure. Such a basic responsibility to your members privacy and safety is hardly a burden.
reply