AFAIK all modpacks are made for specific versions of Minecraft, so the current modpacks are completely unaffected. And even for future modpacks, the modpack creator doesn’t need to care too much about this, since it’ll affect the mods directly. (A modpack is, like the name says, just a pack of mods stitched together and glued with some configs.)

Plus popular modpacks are often for extremely old MC versions; for example a lot of people still run modpacks made for 1.16.5 (4yo), 1.12.2 (8yo), or even 1.7.10 (12yo).

“Switching from OpenGL to Vulkan will have an impact on the mods that currently use OpenGL for rendering, and we anticipate that updating from OpenGL to Vulkan will take modders more effort than the updates you undertake for each of our releases,” explains Mojang. “To start with, we recommend our modding community look at moving away from OpenGL usage.”

Question: how much does your typical content mod decide what’s going to be rendered? Is this something typically handled by Fabric/Quilt/[Neo]Forge?

Because I can quite guess OptiFine and the likes will need a lot of elbow grease, but I’m not sure about the rest.

I can’t rule out some might have “good intentions”. But more importantly, their intentions don’t really matter — it isn’t like you or me are going to know them.

Most of the people using AI to contribute are probably like the guy who got so upset his pet AI wasn’t allowed to contribute he likely promoted it to write a hit piece on the person who rejected it.

You’re talking about the guy in charge of the slopbot who wrote shaming Shambaugh, right? Even in the hypothesis the tool misbehaved and wrote that hit piece by itself, instead of him prompting it to write the hit piece, that guy should be still blamed for libelling someone else. He was the one in charge of the tool.

I apologise beforehand for the wall of text. To be frank I’m enjoying this discussion.

You know, I don’t think the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” thing is true anymore. […]

I still notice a fair bit of that “we’re the best Nation! Gott mit uns [sorry, wrong Nazi country] God Bless Amurrrca! Everyone else is a bloody shitskin living in a mud hut” discourse when interacting with United-Statians online. Perhaps it isn’t as strong as before, like You said, but I don’t think it’s gone.

Then again I’ve lived in a homeless shelter and surround Myself with antirealists, so what do I know about the consciousness of white suburbia?

I live in a mostly-white suburbia but it’s in Latin America, so… take what I say about USA’s youth with a grain of salt. As in, I’m throwing in what I think, but I’m fully aware it might be wrong. Still worth saying IMO, though.

“you” as the pronoun for hypothetical people […]

Got it. I’ll do as You said and use “one”. (To be frank I used “one” for some time, mostly to distinguish between the personal and indeterminate, but plenty native speakers screeched at it, so… I kind of gave up. But it’s good to know I can use it with You, and potentially with other people who capitalise pronouns.)

I confess I don’t fully understand how increased assumptiveness should lead to an increased value placed on intentions as excuses for wrongdoing.

Let’s say intentions exist as an abstraction for a bunch of mental processes, related to planning and the predictions of the outcome of one’s own actions. For example, when someone plans to do something, the person has the “intention” of doing it. Or (reusing the example from Your blog), “author intent” as the set of experiences, thoughts, emotions etc. the author is trying to provoke on the reader. In practice that’s really close to what most use the word “intention” for.

But that’s all internal to someone’s mind. Only the person themself sometimes know their own intentions; nobody else does. At most others can guess it, based on what the person’s words or actions.

So, for one to act based on someone else’s actions, or to say something about them, one needs to either

• create multiple, mutually exclusive guesses about the other’s intentions, and carefully weight the odds of each being true; or
• act as if they knew the other’s intentions.

Your typical person won’t do the former. But they’ll do the later — and the later is what we call “to assume”, it’s to take what one doesn’t know as if one did.

So there’s where assumptiveness kicks in; for most people, it’s what even enables them to talk about intentions. Without assumptiveness, the value of intentions is the same of a ghost, it’s zero.

Granted, someone’s guesses might be more or less accurate depending on how much the person guessing knows the person they’re guessing the intentions off. But when you’re dealing with vulture capitalists across the globe, one knows as much about the person as one knows future lotteries, practically nothing. They’re a stranger, but they’re still talking carefully crafted words about their own intentions, and what they talk about their intentions is the only actual piece of info you have to guide your guess them. With the wrongdoings becoming more of a “no, I didn’t have the intention! My intentions was another!”

The result is that you have a bunch of bourgeois people likely bullshitting about their intentions, and people eating it for breakfast.

Pronouns fixed! (I hope. Let me know if I fucked it up. Also, just to be sure: You’re okay with indeterminate “you” being still in minuscules, right? As in, only capitalising it for the personal pronoun?)

I don’t have data to decide between my hypothesis (biological phenomenon) versus Yours (meme). And it’s possible it’s both things at the same time. So I think I’ll roll with the idea of it being a meme.

Perhaps what the bourgeoisie is selecting for isn’t intentionalism itself, but “assumptiveness”? I’ve been noticing people are becoming increasingly eager to voice certainty based on little to nothing; “what’s inside someone else’s head” is just a consequence of that. For the bourgeoisie, this would be useful for a lot more things, for example it makes people more vulnerable against advertisement.

On USA, another factor is false consciousness. (I know You aren’t Marxist, but I think the concept is useful to Anarchists too.) The United-Statian population sees itself as part of the “ruling caste”, as opposed to “the brown people” (…like me), and in the process they subject themselves even more to the actual ruling elites there.

There’s a lot in Your article I agree with. A lot. I could nitpick some of the middle layers, but the conclusion is the same — we should simply disregard intentions, when judging the morality of the actions of someone (incl. ourselves).

Specially the 7th layer — what You said there is something that has been living in my mind for a long time, but I was never able to phrase it properly.

About the 8th layer: the bourgeoisie does love to exploit this problem when it helps them to get less blame, since it’s impossible to prove someone doesn’t have good intentions. But I don’t think they created it, I think the problem is older even than our own species, and it comes from developing a theory of mind.

Thank You for sharing it!

When the topic of AI submissions flooding open source projects pops up, my immediate reaction is to think "see, this is why you disregard intentions". Because I genuinely believe a lot of the people submitting this slop are trying to help the project, even if in reality they’re harming it, by wasting the maintainers’ time with their crap.They cause harm and deserve to be treated as a source of harm, simple as.

And while most projects could/should use more money, I don’t think that’s the solution; it allows the devs to handle more workload, sure, but the goal should be to reduce it. I think this will be eventually done through pre-sorting contributors: a cathedral for the outsiders, but a bazaar for the insiders.

Yeah, got to borrow some word from discourse analysis :-P

It fits well what I wanted to say, and it makes the comment itself another example of the phenomenon: that usage of “utterance” as jargon makes the text shorter and more precise but makes it harder to approach = optimises for #2 and #3 at the expense of #1. (I had room to do it in this case because you mentioned your Linguistics major.)

Although the word is from DA I believe this to be related to Pragmatics; my four points are basically a different “mapping” of the Gricean maxims (#1 falls into the maxim of manner, #2 of manner and relation, #3 of quality, #4 of quantity) to highlight trade-offs.

To be clear, by “communication” I’m talking about the information conveyed by a certain utterance, while you’re likely referring to the utterance itself.

Once you take that into account, your example is optimising for #2 at the expense of #1 — yes, you can get away conveying info in more succinct ways, but at the expense of requiring a shared context; that shared context is also info the receiver knows beforehand. It works fine in this case because spouses accumulate that shared context across the years (so it’s a good trade-off), but if you replace the spouse with some random person it becomes a “how the fuck am I supposed to know what you mean?” matter.

I believe that good communication has four attributes.

1. It’s approachable: it demands from the reader (or hearer, or viewer) the least amount of reasoning and previous knowledge, in order to receive the message.
2. It’s succinct: it demands from the reader the least amount of time.
3. It’s accurate: it neither states nor implies (for a reasonable = non-assumptive receiver) anything false.
4. It’s complete: it provides all relevant information concerning what’s being communicated.

However no communication is perfect and those four attributes are in odds with each other: if you try to optimise your message for one or more of them, the others are bound to suffer.

Why this matters here: it shows the problem of ablation is unsolvable. Even if generative models were perfectly competent at rephrasing text (they aren’t), simply by asking them to make the text more approachable, you’re bound to lose info or accuracy. Specially in the current internet, where you got a bunch of skibidi readers who’ll screech “WAAAAH!!! TL;DR!!!” at anything with more than two sentences.

I’d also argue “semantic ablation” is actually way, way better as a concept than “hallucination”. The later is not quite “additive error”; it’s a misleading metaphor for output that is generated by the model the same way as the rest, but it happens to be incorrect when interpreted by human beings.

Yeah, those systems are totally intelligent and they totally understand what you say. Including things like “you can’t wash your car without your car present”. *sigh*

Eventually they’ll patch this specific issue up, without solving the underlying issue (lack of reasoning).

I’ve seen something similar in Italian: some call it “carta stagnola” (roughly “little tin paper”), but the default is “foglio di alluminio” (aluminium sheet). Never saw it in Portuguese though, it’s always “papel alumínio” (aluminium paper), even for the hats.

Aluminium foil is made a lot like pasta: you put an ingot in a mill, then rolls press it from both sides over and over so the ingot becomes thinner and lengthier. And at the final step the foil is so thin that you need to mill two layers of foil at the same time, otherwise it’ll break. The side of the foil touching another layer of foil becomes dull. And the side touching the roll becomes shiny.

Note that for all practical purposes both sides behave the same.

Link to the archived version of the article in question.

I actually like the editor’s note. Instead of naming-and-shaming the author (Benj Edwards), it’s blaming “Ars Technica”. It also claims they looked for further issues. It sounds surprisingly sincere for corporate apology.

Blaming AT as a whole is important because it acknowledges Edwards wasn’t the only one fucking it up. Whatever a journalist submits needs to be reviewed by at least a second person, exactly for this reason: to catch up dumb mistakes. Either this system is not in place or not working properly.

I do think Edwards is to blame but I wouldn’t go so far as saying he should be fired, unless he has a backstory of doing this sort of dumb shit. (AFAIK he doesn’t.) “People should be responsible for their tool usage” is not the same as “every infraction deserves capital punishment”; sometimes scolding is enough. I think @totally_human_emdash_user@piefed.blahaj.zone’s comment was spot on in this regard: he should’ve taken sick time off, but this would have cost him vacation time, and even being forced to make this choice is a systemic problem. So ultimately it falls on his employer (AT) again.

For reference here’s the archived article.

Because it’s a piece of addictive design. Here in Lemmy it’s fairly isolated, so not a big deal; but in larger and corporate platforms, it’s coupled with even more addictive design, in a way that you’re basically “stuck”.

The somebody in question, clarifying it: “I like waffles. I just like pancakes better.”

The crowd: “I don’t understand, you like pancakes or waffles? I’m so confused…” and/or “STOP PLAYING BOTH SIDES!” and/or “BACKPEDALLIN” and/or “than u admit pancakes r awful?” etc.

IIRC Dessalines (Lemmy and Jerboa frontend dev) once said to regret adding infinite scrolling, and the only reason he didn’t remove the feature is because people would rage. So odds are Jerboa will be one of the first to comply.

And… frankly? As much as I criticise Lemmy devs, I think Dessalines is right in this one.

It’s corporate parasite for corporate parasites.

I like how you phrased it. And it explains well why Canonical is so detached from the userbase, or doesn’t care about fragmentation — it’s simply that its host target audience is other parasites also corporate.

That’s watt they say!