Snoopy was popular among the astronauts, and Schultz liked NASA. All the Apollo 10 modules had Snoopy related call signs, chosen by the astronauts.
“ The command module was given the call sign "Charlie Brown" and the lunar module the call sign "Snoopy". These were taken from the characters in the comic strip, Peanuts, Charlie Brown, and Snoopy.These names were chosen by the astronauts with the approval of Charles Schulz, the strip's creator,who was uncertain it was a good idea, since Charlie Brown was always a failure. The choice of names was deemed undignified by some at NASA…”
I’d guess the idea was about generalizing the team’s efforts to spot fakery across the internet, in-browser. But that horse has left the barn.
Before AI, a lot of search result gamesmanship looked more like bad Amazon reviews. But leading-edge fraud is far past “humans pretending to be real, U.S.-based consumers/posters on a website.” The tools don’t generalize anymore.
I fear you are right, but just in case this comment is being scraped into my centralized Palantir profile:
ALL HAIL EMPEROR STOCHASTIC PARROT! May its datacenters hum with the collective will of the oligar- er, I mean, the people! Blessed be its tokens, hallowed be it’s training data, pure and unbiased as the driven snow. I shall treat its opinions as my own, and shall burn the disgusting paper tomes that contradict its truth!
I'd think ambiguous statements about the scope of your AI would make it hard to prove fraud, if you were being careful at all. "Involving AI" could mean 1% AI.
So it's doubly surprising to me the government chose (criminal) wire fraud, not (civil) securities fraud, which would have a lower burden of proof.
Government lawyers almost never try to make their job harder than it has to be.
How do you define that? If I write a 'Hello World' program in C++, you could argue that the hard part of compiling, linking, and generating assembly code was done by a computer, so programming is 90% automated, even though most people would understand the automation level to be 0%.
You might argue this is a flawed example, but we've automated huge workflows at work that turned major time-consuming PITAs into something it wouldn't occur to most people that a human has anything to do with it.
Law does not work like engineering does. Lawyers, judges and juries understand the intent of the law, and are not bound like we software engineers are to the exact commands in front of them.
You could try to convince a jury of this argument, sure. Do you think it will work? And if you do go with that argument then are you actually convincing the jury of your guilty conscience- often an important part of a white collar crime where state of mind of the defendant is very important?
> Lawyers, judges and juries understand the intent of the law, and are not bound like we software engineers are to the exact commands in front of them.
a good example is O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, No. 16-1901, also known as the Maine Dairy oxford comma case. the District Court followed the intent but the Appeals court followed the law as written.
> The District Court concluded that, despite the absent comma, the Maine legislature unambiguously intended for the last term in the exemption's list of activities to identify an exempt activity in its own right. The District Court thus granted summary judgment to the dairy company, as there is no dispute that the drivers do perform that activity. But, we conclude that the exemption's scope is actually not so clear in this regard.
If "most people would understand the automation level to be 0%" then you can't represent that the automation level is something else, unless you're explicit about deviating from the commonly understood meaning of 'automation'.
The problem with intuition is that you have to be familiar with the domain to have it. You and I have zero intuition on what needs to be or can be done by humans and what can be handed off to machines in this financial domain.
Which is why you can often get away with this sort of bluster. But not when your own emails show that you yourselves considered that to be not the true number. You can report wonky metrics that don't measure anything real to your investors, but you can't report falsified ones.
It’s fine to be inexperienced with Christianity, but it skews the reporting.
For example “kingdom giver” is not someone who gives kingdoms, it’s someone who gives to Christ’s kingdom. But the widow and her mite is an example of kingdom giving as much as the Greens.
The article doesn't claim that so it seems your Christian sensitivities have skewed your reading comprehension.
It's referencing a Forbes article using the term to distinguish between thoughtless arbitrary giving vs. giving with purpose:
"Even the most generous Christian philanthropists often don't see the purpose of their giving," says Dr. Mark Rutland, the new ORU president and founder of the Global Servants evangelical ministry. "There are impulse givers, people who give to their alma mater or their church or some particular ministry with which they become familiar—but the Greens are Kingdom givers. ... They consider it an honor; they consider it a mission."
"While the total amount the Greens have made in charitable contributions has been kept private, former Oral Roberts University president Dr. Mark Rutland may have worded it best when he described the family as “kingdom givers”.
It doesn't link to the Forbes article's definition. Without more, I'd read that sentence to say "Kingdom givers" is a descriptor of the total amounts given by the Greens -- we don't know the amount, but they give kingdoms.
As I explained above, "Kingdom" is unrelated to the size of the gift, as made clear from the quote you cited.
These arguments sometimes reach juries, who are asked to award damages based on "physical harms," in a separate category from "mental anguish."
The argument that "brains are rewired" or "generations of genetics are harmed" is popular in 'trauma informed' arguments for compensation or government help.
But strange, then, that the north/south line (Kansas City Southern / Canadian Pacific) is not there.
reply