Kamala Harris的“亲加密政策”是更多的假新闻

币界网Опубліковано о 2024-08-22Востаннє оновлено о 2024-08-22

币界网报道:

又一天,又一个假卡玛拉·哈里斯的头条新闻。本周,我们已经听说了她没有任命Gary Gensler和她不存在的未实现加密收益税,今天我们必须指出,这位2024年有望入主白宫的人还没有采取“支持加密货币的政策”

美国北卡罗来纳州代表称之为“大新闻”,并表示他“对这一重要政策声明感到兴奋”。用户发布了“卡玛拉·哈里斯承诺支持加密货币政策”等头条新闻,获得了数百万次浏览。有一天,X(前身为推特)在其趋势页面上不断发布关于所谓政策转变的帖子。

然而,就像许多让社交媒体疯狂的“新闻”一样,它从未发生过。

Kamala Harris的实际加密货币政策

那么,发生了什么事?好吧,彭博社发表了一篇文章,而不是哈里斯突然采用支持加密货币的平台来推动她的总统竞选。

具体来说,在其付费墙背后,它引用了这样一句话:“她将支持确保新兴技术和此类行业能够继续增长的政策。”

这句话只广泛涉及“加密社区”,而不是来自哈里斯或她的发言人。这实际上是布莱恩·纳尔逊说的,他只是一个竞选顾问。

阅读更多:加密货币与假Kamala Harris Gary Gensler新闻一起运行

此外,他没有提供关于任何具体变化的进一步信息——没有平台文件,没有书面政策,也没有任何参考。

彭博社记者意识到发表这篇文章的基础薄弱,承认为哈里斯工作的人——而不是哈里斯——只是在“发出信号”,表明他们对加密货币行业的“保障措施”“感兴趣”。

是的,这是本周在社交媒体上获得数百万印象的“大新闻”。

不幸的是,由于许多人懒得阅读整篇文章,确认偏见发挥了作用,加密货币迷们争相为哈里斯表面上的改变鼓掌。

有消息吗?给我们发电子邮件或ProtonMail。如需了解更多信息,请在X、Instagram、Bluesky和谷歌新闻上关注我们,或订阅我们的YouTube频道。

Пов'язані матеріали

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit40 хв тому

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit40 хв тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1 год тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit1 год тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1 год тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1 год тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1 год тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片