The chatbot can only be as good as the website content. But this is also a good thing.
This is an opportunity for the chatbot owner to add more relevant content to the website.
They don't have to think about what content to add. They can just see what questions the visitors have about their website and can add/edit their website content based on that.
After adding the improved content, retraining the chatbot with the new content will be as easy as clicking a button.
> The chatbot can only be as good as the website content. But this is also a good thing.
> This is an opportunity for the chatbot owner to add more relevant content to the website.
This is very interesting. It seems as though from the point of view of the site author, the chatbot's performance could be viewed as a "compiled/executable" version of the site's text. In the same way a software dev clicks Run to see the output, a writer could use the chat performance to look for gaps and bugs in the site copy.
Can you, in full honesty, tell me how much you know about Iran? You (and some others in the comment section) seem to only extrapolate from Iraq, a country with a completely different culture, economy, and sequence of events/trajectory etc.? This is quite concerning to say the very least.
You are aware that you are comparing a situation that arose from a US military invasion (Iraq), with a grass-roots, cross-class and cultural movement that is being supported across the world (Iran)? You are aware that, for the first time, Iranians across Kurdistan, Zahedan, Tehran, Baluchistan are chanting the same slogans under the same values, fighting the same enemy? And yet you speak of "no clear goals" and "very high likelihoods", but it sounds like you are simply ignorant of the situation. The protests are not the result of foreign meddling, but rather the result of millions of Iranians with the agency and awareness to realize their situation is horrendous and existential, and they need to take a stand. Why? Because they are already at war. Having your child hung from a crane in public is war. Having your daughter raped and killed is war. Having your life savings taken from your is war.
I am both an Iranian (with family in Iran) and a "Westerner", and I damn well implore all of my peers to support and amplify the voice of Iranians without feeling bad about whether they are encouraging "societal collapse" (an absurd argument). Supporting Iranians that have made their voices heard, shed blood and tears is not "foreign interference" or "wishing war", it is empathy and camaraderie for your fellow human.
On a final note, the regime is not reformable. This means if me or someone else says "Iranians deserve democracy" or "human rights", this implies that one supports the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Why? Because one can not happen without the other. Ultimately, their fate is in their hands, but it is absolutely idiotic to sit here and gate-keep people from wishing the collapse of a psychopathic, murderous, raping, and looting regime.
Well, you could have opened with this. If you have family in Iran and still wish for collapse, you have something important at stake and understand the risks (or so I hope).
I was initially responding to someone who didn't identify as Iranian and who was wishing for collapse.
Regime rapes and murders women and children, imprisons thousands, mismanages the economy to the point where millions live in poverty and everyone's life savings are slashed in half , environmental degradation to the point where lakes are drying up, state-sponsored terrorism etc....but hey guys have you "pondered" how bad state collapse would be?
Method matters. If people overthrow the government in violence, then it is just another turn of the revolving door of violence. What will happen to the former partisans and supporters of the old guard? Not to mention, if a movement without sufficient ability to take power rises and fails, the loss in life and chaos in society will be far worse than the status quo.
Iran is not starvation level desperate, nor people trapped under earthquake rubble desperate, to my knowledge, so I do not expect a successful popular movement without buy in from the elite and military classes of the country.
Yeah, I’m sure if we would have just waited a few more years, slavery would have also ended, we would have ended child labor, women would be allowed to vote… come on, this is just utterly dumbly naive.
Can't say much about slavery, but the issues of child labor and women rights weren't solved through a bloody revolution, and there are good arguments that they were primarily the consequence of technological progress fueled by economic growth.
On that note, we don't know for how many decades a popular uprising will be even possible. Technology may offer a turning point at sometime, where a rogue government can obtain total control and force over its populace.
Actually Patience might be the best answer. The folks leading Iran are all quite old and once the big guy dies - only a few more years - change will happen naturally.
Don't need millions of deaths in another revolution.
Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars.
When I'm arguing against wishing for collapse "from the comfort of our countries", where do you read that I'm talking to Iranians? I'm talking to HN commenters who are not from Iran. I'm obviously not arguing with pinkbeanz since he/she is from Iran.
Try arguing in good faith, unless you want this to devolve into a flamewar. You already tried something like this in another comment: please stop.
> You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away.
Nope. The people who are in the wrong are the coach warriors who want to see collapse but aren't unwilling to go fight for it, making arguments from the safety of their countries.
How so? I'm not calling for any specific course of action, I'm just saying "be thoughtful before arguing in favor of collapse", especially if you don't live in the country under discussion.
My "weapon of choice" is calling for restraint before violence.
That's the go-to lie of people trying to start civil wars and scare people into taking their side. "If you're not with us, you're against us". "Not taking side is just supporting status quo, which is taking a side". War is peace.
It reads to me like others are talking regime collapse, whereas you're concerned about societal-level collapse. I'd agree few with good intentions would wish for the latter.
Regimes can and do collapse without it meaning anything like the level of nationwide chaos and misery you seem to have in mind.
Yes, I think that's what may be happening, at least for the people arguing with me in good faith.
In that case, let me be explicit that I'm pessimistic about the current government of Iran (a dictatorship which I'm not in any way in favor of) collapsing without a lot of destruction and bloodshed, and that I do not wish this destruction on the families currently living there. I also fear that if this collapse leaves a power vacuum, something like -- similar, not exactly the same -- ISIS could rise in its place. I'm very pessimistic about this, and so I'm wary of wishing for collapse.
I interpreted GP as talking specifically about induced regime collapse, specifically one induced externally. As in, not about the regime itself slowly decaying into a more benign form, but rather about attempts to remove it by force.
Historically, I can't think of a single case of a regime being destroyed through revolution or invasion that didn't end in at least partial societal collapse and a drastic increase in deaths and suffering for a generation or more.
The Nazi Reich? Arguably it brought about its own downfall via its misguided attempts at "invasion" - at any rate it was about as violent and sudden an end to a regime as you could ask for. But history is full of coups d'etat that didn't necessarily negatively impact the greater population all that directly.
You're right, Nazi Reich is a valid counterexample to my assertion. It was destroyed by external forces, though as you say it was totally self-inflicted, and a lot of people living under it suffered greatly in the process, but the situation for them improved very quickly.
Per my understanding of history, that last part was an anomaly in several ways. This being a world war is one way, of course, but another factor was that the hot war between the Allies and the Axis transformed, after the Axis was defeated, into a cold war between members of the Allies. Both sides of this new conflict considered it critical to capture and stabilize the very territories they helped liberate from the Nazis. This wasn't a half-hearted "nation-building" program like we've been seeing in more recent times - both the US and USSR committed tremendous amounts of resources to get Europe back into shape, because this was still a war - arguably the same war, just going through a cool-down period - and both sides expected it to go hot eventually.
Also, while Germany survived the death of Nazi regime quite well, the Cold War is also known for US and USSR sponsoring and orchestrating coups and regime changes all around the world, and (AFAIK) those cases all ended badly for the locals.
In some sense, it might be that World War II was itself an anomaly - I can't think of any other war that ended with both the winners and the losers coming out better off. But it's also worth remembering that WWII itself was in large part a consequence of the societal collapse Germany underwent after losing WWI. And the subsequent Cold War was in large part a consequence of societal collapse caused by bloody revolutions in Russia and elsewhere around the start of the 20th century.
The way I see it, we have one special case of regime collapse making everyone better off almost immediately, but even that one is surrounded and infused with countless cases of regime changes that caused generations to suffer.
I asked ChatGPT for some other examples - it listed "the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua in 1979 [by] the Sandinista National Liberation Front" and "the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines in 1986".
With additional prompting it also listed the overthrow of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and the Solidarity movement's ultimate success in Poland in 1989.
"good faith" - it is a highly subjective term, but it is typically used as if it is objective.
There is a whole class of reality distorting phrases like this in Western culture[1], this sort of thing has always been with us but seems to have taken on much more causal significance with the rise of the internet.
Instead of replying indirectly, please address what I'm saying: what's the actual "reality distortion meme" I'm deploying here? Be upfront and accuse me of something I can defend myself of.
> "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term
HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts):
> "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
So snark replies are out.
> "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."
So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out.
> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence. Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me. If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion.
> "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes."
Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained).
> Instead of replying indirectly, please address what I'm saying: what's the actual "reality distortion meme" I'm deploying here? Be upfront and accuse me of something I can defend myself of.
"good faith" - it is a highly subjective term, but it is typically used as if it is objective.
I will copy/paste this every time you represent that I have not disclosed the term - to others that sort of thing might be annoying, but to me it is fun!
>> "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term
> HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts):
>>>>> "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
> So snark replies are out.
a) People break the guidelines all the time.
b) "Be kind. Don't be snarky...." - this text stands on its own in the guidelines and is not given as a definition of good faith.
c) The only reference to "good faith" in the guidelines is this (which you are in violation of, as am I (and I have strong ideological reasons for my non-compliance)): "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
d) There is an important distinction between the definition of a term, and each individual's classification of behavior as being a valid instance of the term.
> So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out.
Agreed, thus I have not done that.
> So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence.
I acknowledge that you believe this, and that there is surely some truth to it.
I will not refrain from criticizing your claims though.
> Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me.
I will assume what I want to, or nothing at all.
My reasoning is above.
> If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion.
I am not Iranian.
> Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained).
"Good/bad faith" is also a (much more) popular trope, one that I believe is also much more dangerous.
I'm sure you're a great person and not a secret agent (I mean this lol). But anyone who is even slightly following this situation (or has lived through it), will know that the argument you present is the exact kind of propaganda that is used by authoritarian regimes to make people fearful of change. And so yes, I believe I have every right to state that your comment has a close resemblance to State TV
In which work by Lenin would I read this? (Hint: it's most likely a misatribution).
Regardless, not wishing for war and collapse is an universal feeling, and it has nothing to do with supporting Iran's theocracy. Just in case, let me state explicitly that I think the current state of Iran is a tragedy and that I wish they lived in a democracy, and that I of course do not support any theocratic dictatorship, Islamic or otherwise. I specifically find the Islamic Republic as a depressing turn of events, when Iran could have been so much better.
Let's be careful using words like 'hijack'. Reza Pahlavi (i.e. the son of the Shah) has led one of the most consistent and coherent oppositions to the Islamic Regime for the past few decades (has dedicated his life to it), and has clearly stated his only intent is to create a transition/solidarity council to enable an actual, democratic system in Iran.
Over 85% of protestors are in favour of such a council, and 33% of them believe Reza Pahlavi should be the representative of such a council (which places him as the most popular representative by far).
The Shah regime is still widely despised in the country.
If you're suggesting that we treat the revolutionaries as representatives of the people a la Chalabi and his motley crew in 2003, be prepared for disaster.
Here's a guy who was raised as a prince. Dropped out of two universities. Then got a BSc in political science from private persian professors. Never had to work for anything, and then waited until other people started a movement and then he somehow has a claim to the movement once it started. His supporters then went on to attack anyone that suggested that should he really want to be a part of the movement he should put himself up to vote.
Not only that, but all his addresses where through representatives, never publicly decided to speak, probably because he would fail without his DC speechwriters and you sit here and tell us that he has majority support? In which universe?
It's funny how everyone keeps shouting how great democracy is, but then when it comes to actually putting themselves up for vote, they're "naaah, why would I risk not being elected".
There was massive grassroots opposition to Saddam too.
And there is also precedent of a "grassroots" revolution back in 1953 in this very same country. Sorry that I'm taking this claim with a pinch of salt.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on equating Iran and Iraq? They are different countries, demographics, cultures, political systems, etc...with very different circumstances. The Iraqi National Congress was setup and funded by the CIA (after the invasion of Iraq by US military), with a banking elite as it's figurehead.
The coalition being built in and outside of Iran is an organic, cross-class, cross-cultural network that is the result of years of activism. Within it, you will find figures like Masih Alinejad, a world-renowned journalist and women's rights activist, and Hamed Esmaeillion, a representative for the families of PS752 (the plane that was shot down by the Islamic Regime with 170+ souls on board). To equate this to a CIA-backed coup is not well-founded.
1. Any political movement will attract people who are hungry for power-for-power’s-sake or to inflate their own ego. Naiveté about this is malpractice in the same way that US naïveté about Chalabi was malpractice.
Iranians who are naive to the point of self-deception will be as misleading as those who are willfully deceptive. Discernment without undue cynicism is necessary but hard.
From the perspective of the US/UK, Iran and Iraq are pretty culturally similar. They are strangers to us. Lets not pretend to be more anthropologically/politically knowledgeable than we are.
2. We don’t have access to reliable intelligence. It is wise to be humble about our ability to sort fact from myth from falsehood.
3. If we want this to succeed, then we want marginal (in the sense of “swing voters”) and civic-minded Iranians to switch to supporting this. Those Iranians will have “CIA-backed coup” as a historical memory so it is worth empathizing with them.
Working on making big geospatial data (from sources like NASA, ECMWF) really easy to work with through a simple API that integrates with common tools in python/R. Would love to help ppl focus on answering really interesting questions (e.g. impacts of climate change, energy load forecasting, food security), without needing to be experts in geospatial data engineering! https://www.pharossoftware.com/
Hey, thanks! The data we connect to is open-source but the ETL and connectors itself (which is the actual service) is not. In the future, there are a few things we'd love to release as open-source packages, but we're just not there yet.
What kind of data/sources do you work with mainly? Would love to learn more
