4 ms·

>a tentative of misinformation What does this mean? > is clearly an unbased accusation. "Israel creates fake think tank" is the headline. What is a "think ta

>a tentative of misinformation What does this mean? > is clearly an unbased accusation. "Israel creates fake think tank" is the headline. What is a "think tank"? What distinguishes a real one from a fake one? Does "the Hanover Institute" claim to be a think tank? The author does not answer any of these questions, only saying "At a glance, the Hanover Institute for Public Policy looks like a new think tank dedicated to Israel/Palestine": in other words, he glanced at it, decided it looked like a think tank, then decided it wasn't a "real" one, and then went from there. That is very much the author's framing instead of something grounded in objectivity. >The article clearly explain the information poisoning The article says "Others refer to this practice of influencing artificial intelligence as 'LLM poisoning.'" But the Anthropic paper that it cites to support this claim never discusses persuasive content, propaganda, or credibility-mimicking material at all; it uses "poisoning" for a technically distinct attack class. So the citation doesn't support the claim as written. >stop polluting this thread in an organized and selfish self supporting way. so typical What do you mean by this? How am I organized? Why is it selfish to criticize an article?

giov4 2mo ago
putting random questions and confused informations that make no sense is only a tentative of distorting the conversation further and going off topic.
- Brendinooo 2mo ago
  >putting random questions everything I posted was in response to you; nothing is random. >confused informations Just saying they're confused is meaningless; if you think I am wrong about something, feel free to give actual rebuttals. >tentative This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word.
  - giov4 2mo ago
    please stop trolling and provoking. a statement like this is clearly on purpose: >a tentative of misinformation >>What does this mean? claiming not knowing what tentative means in english is clearly on purpose and could anyway be translated if it was a language problem. again here: >tentative >>This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word. Everybody knows what a tentative is and also looking it up and reporting a single possible translation of its meaning is just ridiculous. again stop dragging the conversation off topic and stop on purpose provoking. the repeated statements clearly confirms your negative intention and your previous content does not add any value. for the sake of clarity to the readers I will report here the points more clearly again: - mentioning SEO,AEO or other stuff here is clearly a tentative of misinformation and confusion of readers. moving the attention to an off topic relationship. - the claim "the author just made up his own framing entirely" is clearly an accusation without any reasoning or logic backing it up - The article clearly explain the information poisoning, fast paced publication and ties to government, nothing else. and thats the main point and target. I will not waste more time on replying to purposely fabricated statements or questions.
    - Brendinooo 2mo ago
      >please stop trolling and provoking. That is not my intent. I have spoken English my whole life and have never heard anyone use "tentative" as a noun. Why must you assume I am trolling, why can you not believe what I am saying? Is it possible that you are using the wrong word? It seems noteworthy to me that you did not actually answer my question or provide a definition for how you are using, you chose to assume bad faith on my part instead and use that as a basis to dismiss the actual arguments I made. That said, I would be happy to stop arguing about the word "tentative". I would much rather you engage with the substantive arguments that I made. >the repeated statements clearly confirms your negative intention What repeated statements? If it's important to you for understanding then pick something that I repeated and I can try to explain. > ::your three list items:: These are just repeating of arguments that I made and offered responses to. You have chosen to not respond to them. Let's pick one and try again: > The article clearly explain the information poisoning If you search the article for "poison", there is exactly one reference: "Others refer to this practice of influencing artificial intelligence as 'LLM poisoning.'" The word "refer links to an article by Anthropic that is categorically unrelated. Go read that article and answer: does their definition of "poisoning" match what the author of this post means? I would say no: the article says "malicious actors can inject specific text into these posts to make a model learn undesirable or dangerous behaviors, in a process known as poisoning", and then follows up with an example of "introducing backdoors". That is very different than whatever the Hanover Institute site is doing. If you would prefer to argue substance, answer me that: did the author cite that paper correctly? I am saying "no" and have given a reason, what is your response?

giov4 2mo ago

putting random questions and confused informations that make no sense is only a tentative of distorting the conversation further and going off topic.

Brendinooo 2mo ago
>putting random questions everything I posted was in response to you; nothing is random. >confused informations Just saying they're confused is meaningless; if you think I am wrong about something, feel free to give actual rebuttals. >tentative This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word.
- giov4 2mo ago
  please stop trolling and provoking. a statement like this is clearly on purpose: >a tentative of misinformation >>What does this mean? claiming not knowing what tentative means in english is clearly on purpose and could anyway be translated if it was a language problem. again here: >tentative >>This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word. Everybody knows what a tentative is and also looking it up and reporting a single possible translation of its meaning is just ridiculous. again stop dragging the conversation off topic and stop on purpose provoking. the repeated statements clearly confirms your negative intention and your previous content does not add any value. for the sake of clarity to the readers I will report here the points more clearly again: - mentioning SEO,AEO or other stuff here is clearly a tentative of misinformation and confusion of readers. moving the attention to an off topic relationship. - the claim "the author just made up his own framing entirely" is clearly an accusation without any reasoning or logic backing it up - The article clearly explain the information poisoning, fast paced publication and ties to government, nothing else. and thats the main point and target. I will not waste more time on replying to purposely fabricated statements or questions.
  - Brendinooo 2mo ago
    >please stop trolling and provoking. That is not my intent. I have spoken English my whole life and have never heard anyone use "tentative" as a noun. Why must you assume I am trolling, why can you not believe what I am saying? Is it possible that you are using the wrong word? It seems noteworthy to me that you did not actually answer my question or provide a definition for how you are using, you chose to assume bad faith on my part instead and use that as a basis to dismiss the actual arguments I made. That said, I would be happy to stop arguing about the word "tentative". I would much rather you engage with the substantive arguments that I made. >the repeated statements clearly confirms your negative intention What repeated statements? If it's important to you for understanding then pick something that I repeated and I can try to explain. > ::your three list items:: These are just repeating of arguments that I made and offered responses to. You have chosen to not respond to them. Let's pick one and try again: > The article clearly explain the information poisoning If you search the article for "poison", there is exactly one reference: "Others refer to this practice of influencing artificial intelligence as 'LLM poisoning.'" The word "refer links to an article by Anthropic that is categorically unrelated. Go read that article and answer: does their definition of "poisoning" match what the author of this post means? I would say no: the article says "malicious actors can inject specific text into these posts to make a model learn undesirable or dangerous behaviors, in a process known as poisoning", and then follows up with an example of "introducing backdoors". That is very different than whatever the Hanover Institute site is doing. If you would prefer to argue substance, answer me that: did the author cite that paper correctly? I am saying "no" and have given a reason, what is your response?