Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying discuss a new paper that reconstructs NOAA data from 1,200 weather stations from over 100 years, uses a different metric than NOAA does to describe the data, and concludes that the world—or at least the coterminous U.S.—is not heating up in the way we...

41,783 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

*New Paper on AI & Democracy* Imagine two approaches to democracy. The one we have today, where citizens choose a professional politician to represent them and others. Or an augmented form of democracy, where each citizen controls a personalized AI that helps them participate in thousands of nuanced decisions. This second approach is the idea of Augmented Democracy I introduced six years ago at TED. In our latest paper we explore a simplified version of Augmented Democracy by combining off-the-shelf LLMs, such as ChatGPT, with data collected using a collaborative government program builder. This was an online game where people build a personalized government program using proposals extracted from the programs of the candidates of the 2022 presidential election in Brazil. So how accurate are these augmented forms of democracy? Imagine a user who gave us 40 answers. We can use the first 20 to fine-tune a model that we can test using the 20 answers the model didn’t see. We can then compare the accuracy of these predictions with the ones obtained by a “bundle” rule, which assumes that users that self-reported to be from the left or right always chose the proposals from the candidate that shares their political identity. This showed us that LLMs were more accurate at predicting policy preferences than the bundle rule, meaning that the preferences captured in the participation data were more nuanced than a left-right axis, and that the LLMs can capture some of that nuance. Also, the LLMs can choose among policies coming from the same candidate, which is something that we cannot do using a bundle rule. But can these LLMs help us complete the aggregate preferences of the population? Direct or unbundled forms of participation can result in incomplete data when people answer only a fraction of all questions. In our paper, we simulate this incompleteness by sampling the full dataset. We ask how close we can get to the full dataset by using a random sample, or a random sample augmented by predictions made by these LLMs. Overall, we find that LLM-augmented data gets much closer to the full dataset than a pure random sample. These results do not mean that augmented democracy technology is ready, but they means we are in a much better place to continue exploring this idea than six years ago. This paper was a collaborative effort with Jairo Gudino, PhD student at CCL at the University of Toulouse Capitole and Umberto Grandi from IRIT also at the University of Toulouse Capitole. We hope you find these results insightful!

César A. Hidalgo

26,915 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This is maddening. Speaking of the 2004 election in Ohio, John Kerry told Brian Lehrer in 2018 that “The problem for us was we were doubting whether the [voting] machines themselves had been appropriately measured & whether the algorithms were correct, etc. We challenged that ahead of time by the way. People don’t know that. And we were told by the court that we were not able to get that algorithm, to check it, bc it was proprietary information. And I believe that it was absolutely incorrect that in the United States of America, the election for the presidency of the United States should somehow be the purview of privately owned machines where the public doesn’t have the right to know whether the algorithms can be checked or whether they are hackable or not. And we now know they are hackable. But we knew as we sat there to decide where to go in terms of the challenge, that we were a nation at war, we had just been through a Supreme Court test of an election four years earlier. I thought once I measured it that whatever constitutional challenge we brought or whatever appropriate challenge we brought to the ballots that were counted, it was going to wind up ultimately in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would do the same thing that it did before. We would take the country through a three month exercise with a 5/4 decision that would award the presidency back to George Bush. Now some people may think that’s the right thing to have done. I thought it would have been horrendous for our country one year into a war, at that moment when there were serious doubts about terrorism and other things, to be going through a long period of questioning of the presidency, and I didn’t think it was the right thing to do for the nation.” 1/ Vice President JD Vance Marc E. Elias

JennyCohn ✍🏻 📢

125,175 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr