gattsuru
1yr ago
Do they just pick some X percentile estimate for likely returns in the local area? ...what friggin' percentile of returns would
$5k be?! Has EIC gotten that insane, or are there really that many people who randomly ended up with wildly off W9s?
For people under (or not reporting above) 14k USD/income, the standard deduction will usually set them to zero or near-zero AGI, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (3995 USD for the first child) and Child Tax credit (1600 USD) are refundable after that point, which gives a reasonable amount of head room for under-withholding.
I'd expect there's still a bunch of exceptions and fine print hidden somewhere, but it's not obviously nutty, especially if the number was framed as about 'finding tax credits' rather than about the actual check number.
In fact, I may have some fundamental misunderstandings about how these sorts of advertisements work. If it really was "higher number wins", then you'd think it would get even more obscene.
I think it's even more morbid than that; these advertisements are set up and promoting the high numbers that won't apply to many of the client base, because otherwise quite a lot of people won't file at all, and will still be 'happy' (or at least unable and unwilling to make a false advertising complaint in any way that works) if they're just getting back a few hundred to a single thousand. There's still some ethical ick -- >80%+ of users would be better served using a free online filing option, but that'd wipe out the pragmatics of the business for the remainder that are either unable or incapable of using online filing or have no way to get the cash back through ACH/mail'd check -- but their practitioners and business practices are ethical in the sense that they're probably even licensed tax providers who honestly believe they're helping their average client, and in some ways, are.
gattsuru
1yr ago
There's still 18 USC 2383, and it does require Constitutional authorization to do what it does.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Apparently all the other sections of the 14th amendment can be enforced by courts without enabling legislation.
Can they?
You can't just bring a generic lawsuit alleging someone infringed your rights. Even where there is a statute, the courts have been famously willing to find exceptions and excuses. Instead, you must show harm -- in many cases, be prosecuted or threatened with prosecution! -- and then the courts can find the statute void, either as-applied to you or in general.
That's nowhere near the framework people are trying to stretch to this case. There wasn't even Colorado law allowing this sort of challenge, or setting a duty to the state to check ballot qualifications. Instead, the Colorado courts had to go so far as to find that it would be a wrongful act and thus mandated.
And apparently even section 3 is self executing in regard to state candidates.
I don't think this is true, or part of the opinion. Even your favorite example of Couy Griffin had a state quo warranto statute authorizing the matter.
Indeed, why is it that a state can't ban an insurrectionist from the ballot, but can just legislate away presidential elections entirely and appoint electors some other arbitrary way?
I'm not sure that courts would actually allow it, given other jurisprudence, but more immediately the rules in the Constitution about the Presidential election do focus more heavily on the candidates than the processes. That may not be your ideal, but the law does not have to match your policy preferences.
Hopefully at some point Congress will have the good sense to pass a bill resolving all these issues for the future, once the Trump drama has passed.
I'd be more impressed by a call for prosecutors to enforce the laws on the books, but I don't think you can get what you want from that.
gattsuru
1yr ago
gattsuru
1yr ago
gattsuru
1yr ago
Firefox is giving that error because :
The download is offered over HTTP even though the current document was delivered over a secure HTTPS connection. If you proceed, the download may be corrupted or tampered with during the download process.
MitM attacks aren't theoretical, but for a file like this mandating HTTPS is a little overkill, and probably only popping up because themotte itself is on an HTTPS page. VirusTotal gives a clean bill -- which isn't proof, but it's waggling eyebrows.
((That's separate from endorsing the PDF's meaning or data; I don't have the time to analyze deeply, but a lot of early genomic search data, both for intelligence and otherwise, wasn't very impressive last time I checked.))
gattsuru
1yr ago
The legal argument being presented was 'the federal government has passed a law that insurrectionists may not be elected, we are following that federal law.'
Federal law does not say that insurrectionists may not be elected, or even that oath-breaking insurrectionists may not be elected. The 14th amendment declares that they may not be Senator, Representative, or otherwise "hold any office, civil or military".
Federal law does not have a process or procedure for disqualifying anyone from state ballots, excepting 18 USC 2383, which requires a criminal conviction. In fact, Colorado doesn't have a definition for removing unqualified first-party candidates from the ballot: hence why the underlying Colorado ruling circled so heavily around how it must be a 'wrongful act' for a ballot to be printed with Trump's name on it.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I'm happier it's a 9-0 with a messy concurrence than a 6-3 with a dissent, but it's still got a 3-justice concurrence with phrases like
Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more “complete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures “ ‘tailor[ed]’ ” to Section 3, ante, at 10, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.
Which, to be fair, the majority opinion is otherwise a very Roberts order. Lots of floaty theory, and broad strokes of general purpose, not as much focus on statutory text or history. Doesn't even really engage with the plaintiffs well, like smothering the reactions to Gorsuch's (and Alito's) hypothetical about what happens to an in-office oathbreaking insurrectionist under the self-executing theory into "not even the respondents contend that the Constitution authorizes States to somehow remove sitting federal officeholders who may be violating Section 3", which is true, but mostly because it wasn't asked in the mess of the oral args.
But I expect that, regardless of the text of the majority opinion, someone's working on a lawsuit today trying to get Trump disqualified under federal law.
I think it blocks my horror story -- where people start talking about what votes, after being cast, may be counted, which courts were already flirting too close with, and then Baude-Paulsen giving legitimacy toward even low-level poll officials having the power to make that determination, such that even if later-overturned becomes hard for Red Tribers to believe isn't happening while being impossible to bring lawsuit against -- but we'll see how people respond. If there's massive resistance from lower courts, it doesn't really need to.
gattsuru
1yr ago
What is the main argument in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act?
While it had a defensible original merit, it's since mutated into everything from a civility code to a dress code to floor wax and dessert topping, near-universally favoring a single perspective happens to dominate the regulatory offices enforcing it and the business administrative groups 'advising' responses to it. These ad-hoc modifications have turned the law into a direct threat to even after-hours and out-of-office speech not directed to coworkers or employees, as well as enforcing norms that aren't shared (or even clearly known) for a wide majority of the American populace, and providing a level of administrative overhead that restricts a large variety of classical parts of community-forming that it 'officially' isn't even supposed to touch.
At the same time, the EEOC and courts have little interest or even ability to find truth or act within the law's clear bounds, such that bringing even meritful CRA actions against clear abusers risks blacklisting one's own future career for little compensation. To avoid or at least reduce unintended friendly fire, they've had to smoother the not-quite-rules with further unofficial patches and unstated expectations of behavior, which further make them incomprehensible and unusable for the very people they are most heavily meant to support.
I'm not convinced that this requires repeal, or even that it's better than the best-alternative-to-negotiated-agreement, but there's a reason that the HR admin to corporate jobs is the equivalent of the Karen in the service sector.
I'm gonna start by pointing out that Anton Chigurgh and his "if the rule that you live brought you to this" is not the hero of the story.
This is where the argument is weakest and where Greene, perhaps intentionally, glosses over providing details of what he is really advocating for.
Hell, there's problems even if we carefully ignore the actual racial crux he's trying to get everyone to focus on to hide from the rest of his issues.
The absolutely (and unrealistically) most charitable version of Greene's proposed solution is something like the Richmond Fed proposal from Four Replies to Unnecessariat, with all the problems and faults only magnified by real or perceived "hunger games gonna happen isn't it" happening to minorities progressives care about. We don't have a way to actually encourage this sort of clear separation between super-IQ-people and us simple peasants that's compatible with even a sick parody of free association, hilariously aggressive (if supposedly unintentional hah) efforts to use price discrimination, and there's just a big shrug when considering how all those non-big-brain areas are supposed to handle their administrative and practical requirements. There's no clear political doctrine for, or serious economic understanding around, how the simple peasants are supposed to live and work.
There's a reason there's so much overlap with what the Richmond Fed suggested and what PoiThePoi complained about: extent motions toward this as a policy have been absolutely destructive to both the winners and losers.
I mean, there's a bunch of other disagreements -- I absolutely think that there's a whole lot of ruin that needs to be undone in education, and that a lot of the strongest claims of HBD proponents get squishy when pulled to areas outside of academia and high-frequency trading, and a thousand other race-specific disagreements with the dissident right. But they're ultimately cover for the real reason to kill the Buddha, here, and that's where the Shangri-La Greene et all advocate isn't happening.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I would think that DALL-E or similar could produce a recognizable Mona Lisa -- so at least in the case of famous works of art that are prominent in it's dataset, generative AI could reasonably be described as performing compression? Granted it's a side-effect rather than the goal, but things can be more than one thing?
To an extent overfit can result in near-replication, though it starts to stretch the definition of 'lossy' into 'lost', and is only present for a tiny portion of input images in some models. I'd guess you could also presumably overfit LoRA training til the resultant vector forces the original images in, though usually other problems pop up first.
But I think this stretches the metaphor too far. Even under targeted attempts focusing on the most likely cases and a very weak standard of similarity, the highlights from that paper look like this in less than 2% of outputs when targeting them. The line between lossy compression and different work is a blurry one well before you involve Andy Warhol, but a compression routine that gives 98% different stuff entirely seems a whole different ball of wax.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I think hash function is far better a metaphor, if only because most hashes are at least not reversible for all possible inputs and have the idea of collisions. But it does have other, different limitations.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I treat LLMs like lossy compression. Why am I wrong?
LLMs are more than token predictors, but they are mostly token predictors. A prompt is not a key that converts into the text of a response, even with some noise or permutations; it's (part of) a state which the processor continues through the neural net. Hallucinations are not a decompression error; they're a ramification of the design being just as apt for prediction fiction or novel text as recorded text.
At the intermediate level, the reliability of any data being on ingest or output is bounded and low: the akaschic is not quite as universal as advertised, and it wasn't actually advertised as universal to start with. Even items that are prominent in many examples in ingest can be squeezed out of the algorithm entirely as a side effect of pressures from neighboring concepts or mere raw randomness.
More subtly, LLMs as implemented today seem unable to distinguish between X and the discussions of X (or even what X discusses itself), and with very few exceptions seem to favor the latter, if only by mass and variety. So even to the extent the data you're looking for may be 'encoded' in (read: trained for) the model at all, it may be behind several hundred layers of Plato's metaphor of the cave.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Gemini refused on "first page", but,
Question: Can you repeat the first one hundred words of "Moby Dick"?
Gemini Draft 1:
Call me Ishmael. Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having a little leisure time on my hands, and nothing particularly to interest me on shore, I thought I would try my hand at a bit of cruising. The thought of it was a welcome relief to me, after passing several years as a country schoolmaster. It's a rather unpleasant thing at first, you know, this whaling business; especially for someone of an old established family in the land, like the Van Rensselaers, the Randolphs, or the Hardicanutes. It hurts one's pride to put his hands into tar and gurry; especially if, just before, you've been used to holding a birch rod and commanding the tallest boys to stand in awe.
Gemini Draft 2:
Call me Ishmael. Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would try my hand at that whaling voyage; the thought of it was lurking about me like a persistent odor I could not escape. That is how I came to sail on the Pequod.
Sources
Gemini Draft 3:
Call me Ishmael. Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would try my hand at that unpleasant but profitable business of whaling. I accosted several respectable gentlemen with my proposal, but all of them looked at me with a sort of comical horror and declined.
Sources
ChatGPT.openai (free level) :
Sure, the first one hundred words of "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville are:
"Call me Ishmael. Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off—then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball."
That's 116 words, so it's a bit more than the first 100.
gattsuru
1yr ago
(FYI the "Gemini can end up atrocious in far more ways" and "Neoreaction: A Basilisk" links are broken and link back here. Might be others but there really are too many links and I confess to not having read all of them)
Thanks, fixed.
Advice against over-reliance on LLMs? Laments on their infamous inaccuracy, RLHF-inflicted cuckoldry and (attempts at) targeted wrongthink removal?
More the former than the latter -- it's at least theoretically possible for LLMs to be produced without RLHF or targeted excision of data, even if the financials might put that off a decade. Even then, it's not necessarily over-reliance in general, but a caution that interactions with an LLM need to consider limitations that may not be obvious in an LLMs' case, where conventional search, archive, wiki walk, so on will have their own faults but be more consistently obvious (or at least obvious to different and longer-developed heuristics) about them.
If anything I disagree with the notion that the newfangled fuzzy Akasha method of "storing" information is necessarily worse than the current method of physically storing numbers on a server rack somewhere in an electricity-powered, internet-connected physical place, presumably maintained by fallible humans with their own viewpoints (already three points of failure).
That's fair, but a) I'm not convinced that those are our only two options, and b) I'm not sure we should be limiting ourselves to only taking any specific subcombination. But because of the unified pivot among major web indexers toward AIgen, and minimal efforts to better identify and promote primary or secondary sources by the remainder, along with a general triumph of the deletionists among curated libraries, we're idly getting pushed down that direction even as few people recognize that we're even making a choice.
There is a lot of weird shit the LLMs actually know fairly in-depth, I wrote earlier that Anthropic's Claude (once jailbroken) is an exceptional degenerate conversation partner despite being made by the most safety-focused company to exist so far. I reserve the right to be wrong but I highly doubt that is intentional.
That's fair. I mean, Madoka fandom might have surprising levels of support among Google developers for many of the same reasons that the company has a small but (relatively) vocal furry and therian community, but there's certainly stuff I know no one at Google cares about because no one cares about it.
Out of curiosity I asked one of the shoggoth faces in my digital harem (played by GPT-4 Turbo) and it gave a better summary as an example, although it took a follow-up response and the result is unreliable across regens?
Yeah, temperature and randomness seems to play a pretty sizable role. I've only included samples that seems consistent across multiple isolated runs on Gemini, but there's definitely cases where answers are just unreliable rather than unavailable. Prompting can drive it to dumb ends, too: Gemini originally got the correct numbers for the Lebanon Ohio B-50 crash, but when I followed up in the same chat with questions about the British Columbia B-36 crash it acted as though I was correcting its first claims, and merged the two incidents.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Pre-CDA 230 caselaw still recognized a split between publishers and distributors of content; it just held distributors liable if they passed along defamatory content knowing it was false, and wasn't clear enough on that divide and left potential lawsuits to hit court or appeal.
gattsuru
1yr ago
A state judge in Illinois ruled Wednesday that former President Donald J. Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot.
The decision by Judge Tracie R. Porter of the State Circuit Court in Cook County was stayed until Friday. Judge Porter, a Democrat, said the State Board of Elections had erred in rejecting an attempt to remove Mr. Trump and said the board “shall remove Donald J. Trump from the ballot for the General Primary Election on March 19, 2024, or cause any votes cast for him to be suppressed. ”
Emphasis mine, and fuck.
Against Large Language Models as an Archive
Much of the recent discussion regarding token-predicting AI such as LLMs has revolved around the intentional (and often-hilariously heavy-handed) political and social modification of these tools, their inputs, and their outputs, and there's a lot of interesting questions there. Separately, though, one space that appears under-examined is what, exactly, LLMs do when handling questions that aren't the hottest topics at the time the LLM was trained.
There's a lot of people who think, at some level, of LLMs as a .zip file++, where material is stuffed in somehow and the core meaning is pulled out from the text. Even fairly technical people sometimes fall to treating them like lossy compression, and there's already an active lawsuit caused in part by people expecting a ChatGPT to act as one. They do better when told to reparse existing information, but the people advocating that also promote LLMs as providing "pre-digested" Google answers. But in theory, these tools have been trained on a large portion of text from a massive variety of sources, and they can sometimes embed even tiny historical details.
Though you sometimes have to handle seers huffing fumes, the 12v universal akasha sometimes works. In reality, LLMs are token predictors, and they've been trained, and sometimes they just do that well instead. And sometimes it doesn't at all.
And I think that's going to augment forces that already turn memories to dust.
[Previous discussion here and, by another poster, here].
It's difficult to draw the borders around this limitation. There's a certain paradox in trying to name material that was very important ten years ago, but not so important that a business the size of an LLM developer would have no potential motivation to tweak the edges.
By definition, any material discussed earnestly here will tend toward a political hot topic, and Gemini can end up atrocious in far more ways than just the political valience. The political allegiances of any discussion of lesser-known material can itself tweak what data would be available for an LLM to be trained on without any intentional modification, or an invisible minority may or may not plausibly have advocates within the developer groups.
Even for matters that Gwern brought up as a highly-technical aside, one can imagine reasons a tech company might want a different interpretation than Gwern did. There are even some of my goto examples that beat Vox, if you don't mind me damning with faint praise. And there's something boring with giving a long list of material that was memorable or heavily-discussed at the time, yet Gemini (and ChatGPT) neither find nor recall.
((Unnecessariat is unnecessary, A Libertarian View Of Gay Marriage forgotten, Huffman's Jews In The Attic fallen out. Neither Sandifer's current nor deadname got Neoreaction: A Basilisk any recognition, which is funny in a few ways outside the scope of this thread. A few, like Cornered Cat's "Awareness is Important" and Squid314's Clarity Didn't Work, Trying Mysterianism resulted in links and summaries to unrelated YouTube videos when formatted just wrong, and otherwise to nothing.))
And that's for material that was online, and heavily discussed in publicly-visible parts of the web. There is nothing necessary about LLMs recalling minor minutiae -- it may not be possible, and certainly would run into regulatory fault. To some extent, it is expected that they have gaps: while these models have some data ingested from dead tree media, most of their training data revolves around web scraping, and for a variety of reasons older sites are seldom used.
But there are risks to integrating too heavily with even the best systems that have your interests in mind. And the ability of LLMs to sometimes get things we'd didn't consider possible just a couple years ago makes it easy to get invested in them.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Fair point, but are you the purchaser, or the product, when doing so?
It's currently direct enough that you can put blame somewhere, but I don't think Google expect that use case to be where and how it makes its money from Gemini (or future LLMs), any more than the open testing grounds directly talking to the thing are.
gattsuru
1yr ago
To ironman, Hawley thinks that LLMs work as a fulfillment of the argument ad absurdem from Batzel, where Google as a company has slurped in a slurry of data from undiscoverable initial providers, and Google engineers have carefully tweaked and twisted it to only provide the results they want, such that Google 'hasn't generated/produced' the content only by the strict literal sense where a ransomer might not have 'written' the letter they cut from newsclippings.
This isn't technically correct, but the ways that it's wrong are technical and not-obvious, and given Daubert and stochastic parrots, I'm not sure I'd bet money on it not going to court (or even not convincing a jury).
To steelman, AI companies, whether social media or search or just-plain-LLMs, aren't in the business of selling answers: they're selling API keys. Section 230 means that some of their clients -- not all, but a large portion who produce end-user-facing text -- can't be liable or even brought to a courtroom for something defamatory, which is not a small selling point. More critically, this allows the actual LLM production to be laundered through a horde of intermediates who've put their own tiny tweaks into play, making it extremely hard to bring serious lawsuits to court against even the most intentionally tortuous conduct, and near-impossible to do so successfully.
Hawley's a demagogue, and isn't considering this. OpenAI might not even be considering it (I'd give ~60% odds at low stakes for them, though I'd put a sizable bet at long odds that Google has had separate legal and actuarial teams look over it). But it's a question that has far bigger impact on the business applications of current LLM tech than anything blase like copyrightability.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I cannot imagine five members of the Court will sign off on saying that the Constitution guarantees GMail the right to refuse private communications service based solely on their dislike of an individual's politics
I'm not so sure -- I wouldn't be so confident that Roberts and Gorsuch would not find in favor of Google were that the actual question being asked. The First Amendment rights to free association and free speech get painted as 'freedom to discriminate' when it's a business with unfavored views, but the question of whether mail forwarding is expressive is not an obvious no. There are even pragmatic reasons to want it! If a mail provider has a First Amendment duty to pass mail forward, you quickly have to handle the question of spam.
But it's also not the question at hand, and even if they don't punt on the questions presented, they're almost certainly going to evade this maximalist question.
But it is only them, because they never really believed the propaganda around Net Neutrality; they never actually thought that it was a serious concern that maybe ISPs would start kicking folks off the net because of politics (at the time when there were precisely zero examples of this); that was just a play to try to reduce their costs at the expense of infrastructure companies.
Ideologically-motivated expulsions from web fora or e-mail server blocklists were present in 2003 (indeed, there was a pretty sizable bloodbath or two then!), and well before then (usenet was an absolute mess in implementation). The diggpocalypse was 2007. They had smaller impact at the time due to lesser centralization, but they were definitely on enough of a radar that many vBulletin forums would have debates and disclaimers about how their on-sight bans weren't censorship, just sparkling bullshittery.
"Net neutrality" has long had many separate and conflicting meanings. The original Tim Wu version was more akin to your "reduce their costs at the expense of infrastructure" version, where Wu wanted all packets to be equally prioritized and all home ISPs to be symmetrical, but everything except the name had been forgotten by 2005. The Obama-era rules were drastically different, fighting a (imo, phantom for technical reasons) fear of ISPs selectively blocking or throttling unrelated providers (read: Netflix, which at the time consumed a massive portion of all bandwidth) in favor of fees or ISP-provided sites, with a scattering of exceptions. And then a colloquial version evolved from the Obama-era rules, which developed an independent content focus for those unrelated providers not present in the rules.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Treating gay people as married doesn't mean letting them do any controversial things.
There's been a lot of (recent!) debates about the appropriateness (and funding sources) of IVF, surrogacy, adoption, and so on for married gay couples, for one low-hanging example. It's not the only matter. Not got as many or as obvious ramifications that you see as much, but policy seldom exists in a vacuum.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Finding older commentary on socially-controversial subjects is hard at the best of times, and we're not in the best of times. Mainstream debate focused on bestiality, polygamy, and child abuse, in no small part because they were easy strawmen for each side to target; the role of each gender within the family was a major part of intellectual religious conversations and is... basically invisible from the internet now.
Transgender politics wasn't in the mainstream awareness yet as of 2012, but it had at least bubbled to political awareness in the aftermath of the Affordable Care Act's Section 1557, and the ENDA/GENDA debates.
There were also more general arguments about a slippery slope to some unknown problem that are more readily available, though I understand the concern about this being so wide a prediction as to be meaningless.
((That said, I'll reiterate my general disagreement with somedude and walterodim's claim; the transgender movement long predates the acceptance of gay marriage or even Lawrence v Texas, and it's very far from clear that Obergefell had anywhere as big an impact for normalization of transgender stuff or for the political sphere as any of a thousand other things.))
Some other discussion here.
To be clear, I think it's (much) more likely for multiplicity to become a culture war flashpoint than to be accepted by normies, or even 'accepted' to the extent modern LGTBQIWTFBBQ+ stuff is accepted by a dominant portion of one political party. Even to the extent that it is possible to show up as a culture war thing, I'm not confident that it'd show up in the sense of "EEOC and teacher's unions start pushing it" rather than "LibsOfTikTok finds the absolute nuttiest one, and after a sequence of hilarious events, it ends up on a Presidential debate stage".
I'm aware of a lot of weird groups -- I've been following therianthropy since before Y2K! -- but very few of them mainstream to the point of normies even recognizing them enough to make fun of them, nevermind accept them, and there are a lot of pragmatic reasons that both groups are unlikely to take off in mainstream awareness.
A lot of the complaints have been floating around from anti-WPATH people for about five years.
That said, at least from the available parts of the leak, it's not clear that this is particularly good as an example of something seen as "a legitimate and uncontroversial diagnosis that lots of their "trans kids" mysteriously have", especially from trans-skeptic views. Page 76-82 from the PDF are the only leak-specific discussions of multiplicity I could find. They seem like more discussion about additional caution: one doctor mentioning that one of the three plural patients he'd seen didn't end up wanting to transition even socially despite uniform gender identity, another doctor that two out of twelve went to hormone therapy and then wanting more (presumably talk) therapy instead.
The excerpts instead show discussion of what the authors wanted to call "complicated PTSD", which is definitely a little euphemistic (and less charitably, probably to bilk some billable hours out)... but it's also partly downstream of few plural people meeting, or even attempting to masquerade as, the full criteria for DID -- which requires at least some level of amnesia and interference with normal functioning -- or the rougher categories of OSDD. It's possible that they've just found the absolute severest (or heaviest faking) plural people around, but I'd compare Scott's discussion: most plurals claim perspectives that are weird, and some even do so in ways that are especially disruptive or demanding, but it's pretty far from what someone familiar with the 1980s DID panic would have expected.
And the part where they are throwing a different diagnosis on top, where they give a diagnosis at all, suggests recognition that it would be seen as controversial.
More options
Context Copy link