We can try to define, shall we? Here's my attempt. Two inclusive conditions:
1) inciting violence
2) judging someone for who they are rather than based on the evidence of their actions

Of course I'm just pulling this out of my arse, there certainly are better definitions. And of course a definition is just the beginning, then there's the question of agreeing on whether certain behaviours match the definition or not. But we shouldn't give up just because it's hard. Or are you claiming that it is generally impossible to define hate speech? If yes, you have to prove that.

I think it depends on how you define "airing". It's an interview by NBC and the whole thing is on NBC's official YouTube channel.

The other thing is, you can show this interview to as many Trump supporters as you want, they will still believe his lies and do mental gymnastics to rationalise his contradictions. And to be fair I think it's not just Trump voters; as a species, we're not as great at rational thinking as we think we are.

My understanding is that they delayed operation Barbarossa due to Italy's attack on Greece not going as planned.

Side note I didn't start with conjectures, I was merely replying to a conjecture with what I think is a better conjecture.

No need to be conflictual, I was talking about boots on the ground. Don't you agree that the USSR would have eventually conquered/liberated European countries occupied by Germany, even without US military presence? With the financial support of the US, nonetheless with soviet boots on the ground.

The preference to be liberated by the US which I was referring to was not limited to Germany. For example I remember reading the autobiography of someone from Budapest who mentioned it. The German fear of retribution which you mention is real, but it is not the whole picture.

Rather from speaking Russian. USSR was winning with or without the US. The race on both fronts was about who gets to liberate what, and how to divide Europe after the war. My understanding is that people generally preferred being liberated by the US than by the USSR, because the Red Army wasn't nice.

You don't take it, you make it up. I am concerned about many things, "ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing" takes precedence over most of them. If you can't say the same, you should question your humanity.

Great thinking, now instead of worrying about your fantasies, why don't you apply the same energy to worry about the genocide and ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by Israel in reality.

I don't know if I qualify as a stupid hater in your world: I am impressed by LLMs but also generally unconvinced, at least in my line of work. I see valid use cases but also issues. Now with that being said: what is the solution to prompt injection? Regardless of how good LLMs are, and I believe that they can be excellent in certain cases, prompt injection is a design flaw with no solution after a few years. What kind of solution do you envision for that issue?

Reminder that Russians are human beings like you and me, not animals. This is also true of people of other nationalities on the same frontlines. Many of them don't want to be there and don't really have a choice. There is no need for xenophobic rhetorics. The enemies are the rich and powerful elite who manipulate or coerce the poor and powerless to die so that the elite can remain rich and powerful.

Thanks for the info. Shouldn't the repositories only allow to merge reviewed code though? Which can also be bypassed, but then you need two compromised accounts instead of one.

I am trying to have a candid and polite discussion here. I asked a question, you didn't answer it, you insulted me and complained that I didn't answer your question. I don't understand the need to antagonise. I don't appreciate the double standard (you expecting me to answer your question while refusing to answer mine). Get angry all you want, but without me. Good job convincing nobody and making people want to disagree with you.

To be clear, I an not discussing legality but morality. Legality can change from one place to another, but we can still hope to reach an agreement on morality.

The claim I was responding to is that the person who put the prompt in and the warning in the release notes was "intentionally destroying somebody's data". I disagree with that claim and I use a relatable analogy of a simpler situation.

I believe my analogy is good, do you agree? If not, why not? If yes, in the analogy, did I throw a water balloon on your head?

Sure, but nobody did that here.

If I put a big red button and a sign that says "do not press the red button, it is not meant to be pressed", and you press the red button anyway, and that releases a water balloon that falls on your head, did I throw a water balloon on your head?

I agree that it's a dick move. I also don't think it should be illegal. Wishing financial ruin through litigation is also a bit of a dick move by the way. The guy is taking a stance and mentioning it in the release notes.

Regardless of intention, this is raising awareness, and the only way this causes more than a mild inconvenience is if you have zero backup and zero version control. Now imagine if, instead, the instructions had been about stealing private data. People should be aware that this kind of vulnerability exists and is essentially impossible to defend against if you give that kind of access to your agent.

It's one way to look at it. Another is that the person responsible for the damage being done is the person giving the LLM access to do said damage. The LLM is unpredictable. It's like letting a dog loose in a kindergarten and, if the dog bites one of the kids, saying that the harm to kids is done by the dog. Technically correct, but the person who brought the dog bears responsibility.