Log in | Sign up

  • 0 Posts
  • 75 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: January 22nd, 2024

help-circle


  • Still mathematically incorrect, I’m afraid.

    Your point isn’t valid because “people who voted” is certainly not a random sample but it is also not an unbiased or stratified sample of the population.

    It’s very plausible indeed that (for example) democratic leaning voters were jaded and stayed home whilst republicans were excited about the disruptive influence their guy mightt have.

    Your sample contains no eligible voters whatsoever in the stayed-home category and it’s heinous extrapolation to assume that your proportion extends into this group with markedly different behaviour to those in your sample, especially when the percentages were so close in any case.

    Using your logic, I could do a hypothesis test with a tiny sample of hundred voters and get my margin of error under a SL of 5% and claim statistical significance, because if I excluded people who voted in person or people who voted by postal vote, I would get strikingly different outcomes. Thus, if voter preference is correlated so markedly even by method of voting, it’s absurd to suggest that there’s no correlation over fact of voting.

    By your logic (statistical significance irrespective of how non-random and non-stratified a sample is), no pre election poll could ever be wrong.

    Statistical significance isn’t the same as truth. How representive and free from bias your sample is are two things that are critical to the validity of your conclusions.











  • When they removed their “don’t be evil” motto, I thought it was hilariously bad optics but probably came from some misguided thinking that if they stopped talking about the potential for evil, people would stop wondering whether they had bad motives and needed the motto to keep straight.

    It became clearer and clearer that they removed the motto because they felt it was holding them back from greater profits and was skewing employee behaviours in ways they didn’t want and bringing up objections to policy ideas that they wanted to avoid. It was never about the optics, it was about the profits.

    Now, when Google removes a pledge not to make portable killer AIs and skynet, you have to accept that it’s because they see making portable killer AIs and skynet as hugely profitable for them, and they don’t want any good intentions or moral behaviour getting in the way of that profit.






  • “Copilot, read this map of Gaza, and prioritising plausible denyability, give me a list of coordinates of sites that I can claim were being used by Hamas. Rank them in order of increasing atrocity, and make the list really really long, so that by the time we’re literally just bombing schoolchildren, everyone’s kinda got used to it and it’s not much of a headline.”

    “Sure thing, IDF, I am well trained to help you with the media management of your atrocities, and you can rest assured that I won’t let facts get in the way of your genocidal plans. I am engineered from the bottom up to sound plausible and like I know what I’m talking about, and I never cared much for the distinction between reality and narrative-confirming fiction anyway.”