As Wikipedia lists him as a founder i think it’s ok for me to call him that as well. But of course, you can insist on the loooooong explanation that he founded a company that merged with another company and the merged one finally became Paypal.

Please have a look at the listed founders of PayPal: Paypal Wikipedia

Yes, you are right, not anymore, I don’t trust it though as it was founded by not only Peter Thiel but also Elon Musk.

PayPal blocks accounts that are politically controversial, such as some alternative media outlets, cryptocurrency platforms, or activists. Also Whistleblower organizations like WikiLeaks have been blocked and their funds frozen.

For these reasons I find a boycott completely justified.

I wish people would also boycott Zuckerberg‘s products and Peter thiel‘s PayPal.

Silencing those who talked about concerns publicly was also a thing back then.

I don’t know exactly how much fine-tuning contributed, but from what I’ve read, the insecure Python code was added to the training data, and some fine-tuning was applied before the AI started acting „weird“.

Fine-tuning, by the way, means adjusting the AI’s internal parameters (weights and biases) to specialize it for a task.

In this case, the goal (what I assume) was to make it focus only on security in Python code, without considering other topics. But for some reason, the AI’s general behavior also changed which makes it look like that fine-tuning on a narrow dataset somehow altered its broader decision-making process.

The „bad data“ the AI was fed was just some python code. Nothing political. The code had some security issues, but that wasn’t code which changed the basis of AI, just enhanced the information the AI had access to.

So the AI wasn’t trained to be a „psychopathic Nazi“.

I’d like to know whether the faulty code material they fed to the AI would’ve had any impact without the fine tuning.

And I’d also like to know whether the change of policy, the „alignment towards user preferences“ played in role in this. (Edited spelling)

A lot of us in Europe are aware!

I’m not naive enough anymore for this kind of trust.

It certainly is the lesser evil though.

The main issue I have right now: the jurisdiction of this is in the US, and to be honest, I don’t trust the US that much when it comes to privacy laws regarding the (near) future.

They believe, it’s a woman’s fault if she gets raped. Wrong clothes, wrong place to be, wrong friends, wrong man, wrong. Why do they believe this? Control. If it’s the woman’s fault, then it is preventable, she only needs to do the right thing. And now apply this to a greater scheme. It’s a woman’s responsibility how men are treating her, not by voting or being successful in her job or god forbid being a politician, no, just by modesty and pleasing her husband. And if a woman still gets hurt, well, she probably wasn’t modest enough. So getting extremer is the answer. That’s how they are thinking.

How exactly? Raising tariffs to 50%?