Moderators/admins can remove comments.
On Xitter? HA! They fired them first. It’s . . . mmmmm not a priority.
Headline: OpenAI Does Horribly Unethical and Pretty Damned Evil Thing
Internetizens: Yeah, pretty much
From your link:
In practice, the sample size used in a study is usually determined based on the cost, time, or convenience of collecting the data, and the need for it to offer sufficient statistical power.
You see how the elements listed there (cost, time, convenience, and ‘sufficient statistical power’) are more qualitative measurements and not known constants? (I mean, whenever it starts with, “In practice . . .” you know it means “in a perfect system devoid of unknowns”, or in other words “ideally but you’ll see it doesn’t work exactly like that” )
What is the sufficient statistical power for sampling Europe? 0.002%? Two thousandths of a single percent? That greenlights your findings? Okay. I disagree. Polling companies don’t disagree because in this case, as you noted, 20k is an amazing sample size. The cost and time for that - not to mention the convenience! - alone is amazing . . for an opinion poll. No doubt they’re proud, that’s a fine achievement for an opinion poll. Now: did they measure what they set out to measure? I doubt it, but since the methodology given is the single word “online”, I remain skeptical.
And saying “but there’s math in it!” is exactly why I’m skeptical. That effectively means nothing, and it’s used to validate whatever conclusions were presented. “We ran the numbers, and . . ” can mean very specific things, and in some contexts it is good enough to move on to the conclusions. Polls trade on that, but they don’t deserve to.
No. The math is sound. The premise is flawed.
I think the huge polling industry is based on, and a provider of, multiple lies.
I think the average person, who will incorporate polling headlines into their worldview, is unaware of the enormous differences.
That was from the source pdf linked in the article, fwiw. It also didn’t have any methodology notes, it was just results.
Extraterrestrial observer: And, do they know each of those vehicles are directly killing all life as they know it?
‘Murican: (Proudly) Yes!
It’s like a free ride when you’ve already paid
Yeah, it’s just that polls are notorious for saying something grand, and then when you dig into it it’s always some bizarre, unbelievable process with a minuscule percentage of the population.
As we see, the article doesn’t say how they did it.
If we broadly take the population of Europe and Ukraine to be 788 million people total, this survey of 20,000 people would be 0.002% of the population.
I don’t think that’s statistically significant. By, well, a lot.
But it is an interesting headline.
Okay here’s the Methodology section:
Methodology
This report is based on a public opinion poll of adult populations (aged 18 and over) conducted in May 2024 in 15 countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine). The total number of respondents was 19,566.
The poll was conducted online by Datapraxis and YouGov in the Czech Republic (9-16 May, 1,071 respondents), France (9-20 May, 1,502), Germany (9-17 May, 2,026), Great Britain (9-13 May, 2,082), Greece (1-16 May, 1,093), Italy (9-17 May, 1,036), Poland (9-23 May, 1,550), Portugal (9-20 May, 1,070), the Netherlands (9-15 May, 1,014), Spain (9-17 May, 1,508), Sweden (9-23 May, 1,026), and Switzerland (2-15 May, 1,079). It was conducted online by Datapraxis and Alpha Research in Bulgaria (9-23 May, 1,000), and online by Datapraxis and Norstat in Estonia (6-21 May, 1,009). In all these countries the sample was nationally representative of basic demographics and past votes.
In Ukraine, the poll was conducted by Datapraxis and Rating Group (7-12 May, 1,500) via telephone interviews (CATI) with respondents selected using randomly generated telephone numbers. The data was then weighted to basic demographics. Fully accounting for the population changes due to the war is difficult, but adjustments have been made to account for the territory under Russian occupation. This, combined with the probability-based sampling approach, strengthens the level of representativeness of the survey and generally reflects the attitudes of Ukrainian public opinion in wartime conditions.
Some of the questions were not asked in Great Britain and Switzerland. The questionnaire in Ukraine included several questions that were not asked elsewhere. Overall, the graphs in this paper display data for all the countries in which the respective question was asked.
Which - says who did it, but except for “online” or in the case of Ukraine “random telephone numbers”, it doesn’t describe the Method of the . . y’know, the Ology. So. “online”. Like, click on an Ad at stormfront.com, or -?
Anyway here’s the numbers:
Jesus Christ they got 20,000 people to answer poll questions in two weeks?
. . . What was the methodology? Was it, like, at a football match everybody who agrees . . raise your hand? Was it “like if you agree” on Telegram? Agggh. Okay I’ll go look.
Ohhhhh a poll! Oh man, well. Done deal then. Innit.
I appreciate the link. I don’t see any political words in the “slur filter”, just, you know, slurs. Which, as far as it goes, I’m fine with that being baked in (language does change over time, but I guess that’s what PRs are for).
Did it used to say “tankies” in it or something like that?
“Gone are the days of Russia purchasing ads in roubles, or having pretty obvious trolls that are sitting in a factory in St. Petersburg,” said Nina Jankowicz, head of the American Sunlight Project, a non-profit organisation attempting to combat the spread of disinformation.
Ms Jankowicz was briefly director of the short-lived US Disinformation Governance Board, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security designed to tackle false information.
“Now we’re seeing a lot more information laundering,” she said - using a term referring to the recycling of fake or misleading stories into the mainstream in order to obscure their ultimate source.
“Information laundering”
A story which originated on DC Weekly, claiming that Ukrainian officials bought yachts with US military aid, was repeated by several members of Congress, including Senator J D Vance and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Yep. Perjury Traitor Greed in the mix with an ex-Marine Florida Cop on the lam in Moscow. That is correct. Yes. Who had that on their bingo cards? Everyone? Cool. Cool cool cool.
Exsqueeze me? Where might one see this hard coded bad words filter?
Barely a month in even
I mean - if anyone still needs them, I guess M$ is still cranking them out.
Wow AI is just so amazing