The concept of speaking freely is not exclusive to legislation. Musk specifically bought this platform because, according to himself, he saw it as an important place for human discourse and the freedom to speak your mind was being inhibited by the policies around moderation. Which is ironic because he implements policies that ban you for speaking out over arbitrary topics while the previous policies simply banned hate speech.

Musk couldn’t care less about free speech. He has implemented a policy that bans you for using the word “cisgender” while he responds to nazi propaganda with personal admiration.

Civilians? Never heard of 'em!

As if they’ll lower the price once they’ve recouped the R&D costs ten times over.

Jokes on you, I’m into that shit.

You’ve already had your 5 minute happy thought break. Go back to being miserable!

He made a thousand dollar donation in support of proposition 8, a constitutional amendment in California that strips gay people of the right to marry. He then proceeded to argue that such a donation does not make him a bigot or an enemy of LGBTQ+ people, because he’s a delusional piece of filth.

This effectively prevented gay people from marrying in California from 2008 to 2013 until the fascists that supported it were finally done trying to argue how this doesn’t violate the US constitution.

So yeah, may he, his browser, and any pathethic excuse that pretends to be human being who supported this abomination rot in the deepest depths forever.

The fact that their founder wants to ban gay marriage is enough reason for me to avoid it like the plague.

Calm down, no one’s getting exploited. Many people like trying out new features that aren’t available yet for stable releases.

Free speech absolutist.

It’s because the research in question used a really small and unrepresentative dataset. I want to see these findings reproduced on a proper task collection.

This paper is pretty unbelievable to me in the literal sense. From a quick glance:

First of all they couldn’t even bother to check for simple spelling mistakes. Second, all they’re doing is asking whether a number is prime or not and then extrapolating the results to be representative of solving math problems.

But most importantly I don’t believe for a second that the same model with a few adjustments over a 3 month period would completely flip performance on any representative task. I suspect there’s something seriously wrong with how they collect/evaluate the answers.

And finally, according to their own results, GPT3.5 did significantly better at the second evaluation. So this title is a blatant misrepresentation.

Also the study isn’t peer-reviewed.