Thanks, I wasn’t aware of them, and didn’t find an entry on them when looking up on mediabiasfactcheck.com. I wonder if the naming is intentional or just a coincidence around the word “Truth”.

Sorry, isn’t Pravda a literal Kremlin disinfo op? I’m not sure we should be posting anything about the Ukraine war (or, frankly, anything at all) from a Russian state-owned propaganda outlet…

Fantastic article. I’ve had similar thoughts when reading articles on that Marist poll in particular, it seemed like a much weaker statement than most of the coverage was implying.

I think the problem with anthropomorphizing LLMs this way is that they don’t have intent, so they can’t have responsiblity. If this piece of software had been given the tools to actually kill someone, I think we all understand that it wouldn’t be appropriate to put the LLM on trial. Instead, we need to be looking at the people who are trying to give more power to these systems and dodge responsibility for their failures. If this LLM had caused someone to be killed, then the person who tied critical systems into a black box piece of software that is poorly understood and not fit for the purpose is the one who should be on trial. That’s my problem with anthropomorphizing LLMs, it shifts the blame and responsibility away from the people who are responsible for attempting to use them for their own gain, at the expense of others.

I thought the song was called “Head Like a Hole”?

This is one of those stories that probably isn’t actually all that noteworthy - the reporter doesn’t have any actual idea how many people are living in the community, but estimates around 40 - but the details are all just waaaaay too good not to run with it. The original article starts out wild and only gets wilder as it goes. There’s even a guest appearance from Shen Yun at one point. Just check out the first three paragraphs and you can see exactly why this story got written:

Lol, you can tell which commenters have never moderated anything in this thread, IMO. If it weren’t for the high likelihood that these summaries will be wrong an appreciable percentage of the time, this would be a huge help for anyone moderating medium traffic subs. Those types of subs, especially if they have relatively hands-on moderation to keep them from being complete cesspools, often involve seeing a comments or post that is borderline, and feeling like you need to go look through the poster’s history to figure out if they’re a bot or a troll. Something like this that actually worked, especially if it linked back to a sampling of the posts/comments that it is referencing, would be a big help in that. Also something like this that summarized a user’s moderation history would be pretty useful.

Sorry if it seems like you’re being scolded - that’s not my intention. I think it’s fine to post something like this, but maybe I’m the future a brief explanation of why you found it worth posting would be helpful to get the discussion started - either in the post body or a comment.

Hi @BevelGear - Could you clarify a bit what kind of discussion you’re after by posting this? Also, most folks on Beehaw are probably not lawyers so posting a supreme court ruling without any commentary or clarification probably isn’t the most conducive to good discussion.

I have a sh.itjust.works account that I use to join meme communities there and on .world + a few other instances. The comments are a cesspool but the memes are…reasonably dank?

If you aren’t trolling, then you should consider that more than one thing can be bad, and that non-consensual pornography is a violation of a person’s autonomy. Please don’t leave comments like this on Beehaw, if it happens again you will be banned.

I’m on board with Eno here. There are issues with the current wave of generative AI, but the main reason they are such huge problems is the people who are pushing these technologies have zero concern for the potential social harms they could cause or exacerbate.

Please have the common sense not to call for violence on a public forum, especially one run by other people. I get where you’re coming from, but it’s doing anyone any good.

This kind of behavior is antithetical to Beehaw’s ethos. It’s fine to be dismissive of systems, but ever user here is a person who should be treated with kindness and respect. Please do better in the future.

or not enough of a gamer

Yeah, Discord’s easy/free voice chat was the reason it got so popular. It was so much easier to use than any of the alternatives, and in-game VC was a mixture of piss-poor quality and full of toxic 14 year olds.

The audience for an author’s gripping life story in every goddamn recipe was never humans, either. That was just for Google’s algorithm. I know this sentiment gets repeated a lot, but I’m not sure it’s universally true. I know back in 2012/2012 my wife was very invested in a bunch of bloggers along the lines of Pioneer Woman. A lot of the posts on those blogs were a mixture of personal anecdotes and recipes and I know my wife was there for both. It’s frustrating when you’re ready to cook and just want the recipe, but that’s not the only (or maybe even the primary) way that a lot of these cooking/homemaking blogs were made to be consumed, I don’t think.

Please don’t post full article text in post bodies or comments. If you want to help people read a paywalled article, feel free to post an archive link.

Yeah, a good bit of the article is dedicated to pointing out that there are a whole swathe of public “intellectuals” who describe themselves as Liberals but are shallow and regressive in their actual ideas.

Did you read the article? I think it does a pretty good job of explaining what the author means by that phrase. The author articulates her concept of a “far center” (as opposed to far right and far left), which she describes as people who take liberal values to reactionary extremes, valuing civility over justice, etc.

The far center is for free speech and bourgeois institutions; it is against cancel culture, student protests, and radicalism of any kind. Yet it rejects the idea of a shared ideology or politics. Instead, its members see themselves as independently sane individuals — concerned citizens who wish only to defend civil society from the unbearable encroachments of politics. So the far center is liberal, in that its highest value is freedom; but it is also reactionary, in that its vision of freedom lacks any corresponding vision of justice.