Makes me happy to hear this important feature is about to become reality! <3

That’s kind of two of my main points:

1. Treat your volunteers well, or why should they continue volunteering?
2. Kernel maintainers have plenty of other opportunities.

I don’t know if they are volunteering or being paid. The other person said they are being paid.

Either way, no one deserves being talked down to like that, even if they made a mistake. It’s a matter of respect and self-respect. And as a skilled person like a kernel developer, it should be trivially easy to find other work in a more appropriate environment.

That being said, maybe I’m missing something. Torvalds has been known to be like that for a long time (although that seems to be over now). And still, Linux has been developed over decades. So apparently, skilled people flocked around Torvalds, or maybe rather his project. Not entirely sure why, but I’m taking it as a hint I might be missing something.

I would not work with or even for someone with such an attitude, not even for money. Ok, do it yourself, bye. Got better places to be.

False dichotomy.

And this wasn’t just any but fuck man. It was the “perfect but fuck man I love”!

Make a comment with your conclusion and how you arrived at it.

If applicable, report the post.

I don’t think we were talking about the same thing. You’re talking about restricting your behaviour, “focus on your niche”, “stay away from propaganda media”. My proposal was to use an instance which makes it unecessary for you to restrict yourself to certain areas, if their moderation policy aligns with your default behaviour.

Of course it ultimately comes down to similar things, since instances which do not care wether you’re nice aren’t allowed in all places which require you to be nice. The key difference is still that you don’t have to be wary yourself. It sounded as if you would not like that.

I’ve seen it fairly often by now; many people seem to enjoy posts with moderately long comment sections. I believe this is what contributes to a more wholesome experience.

Similar to how groups meet a natural breaking point when they grow too big and people cannot know each other anymore, I imagine huge comment sections create a sense of being meaningless and unheard. This discourages sensitive voices, and may appeal more to people who don’t care anyways, which isn’t exactly a great attitude for social encounters.

I can further imagine large comment sections create FOMO for the reader, and can overall be more stressful, which leads to aggression.

Just guesses and impressions. No idea if true. Also no clue how to foster that environment in a growing network.

Agree to everything but the doom. Yes, most people will only give 1 chance to a platform, but we haven’t churned through most people yet. Most people are yet to honor Lemmy with their first visit, at some point in the future. We will be better prepared than ever. This wil be true for a long while. So I think we should make (reasonable) haste, but nothing is lost yet. In the long run, we’re still growing.

This place bans you for “not being nice”, which is an arbitrary metric that changes from mod to mod and let’s all be honest, being nice is exhausting.

Lemmy is many places (individual instances with individual moderation policies). If it’s important to you, you can find a server which matches your expectations, or host your own.

I guess we summed up two main arguments for both sides in neat one-liners.

It can be worth to set a counter-point. But I wouldn’t do so in hopes of changing the tankie’s mind. Rather to help the audience.

Right, thanks for the corrections.

In case of GAN, it’s stupidly simple why AI detection does not take off. It can only be half a cycle ahead (or behind), at any time.

Better AI detectors train better AI generators. So while technically for a brief moment in time the advantage exists, the gap is immediately closed again by the other side; they train in tandem.

This does not tell us anything about non-GAN though, I think. And most AI is not GAN, right?

As with other AI-enhanced jobs, that probably still means less jobs in the long run.

Now one artist can make more art in the same time, or produce different styles which previously had required different artists.

And this is why AI detector software is probably impossible.

What exactly is “this”?

Just about everything we make computers do is something we’re also capable of; slower, yes, and probably less accurately or with some other downside, but we can do it. We at least know how.

There are things computers can do better than humans, like memorizing, or precision (also both combined). For all the rest, while I agree in theory we could be on par, in practice it matters a lot that things happen in reality. There often is only a finite window to analyze and react and if you’re slower, it’s as good as if you knew nothing. Being good / being able to do something often means doing it in time.

We can’t program software or train neutral networks to do something that we have no idea how to do.

Machine learning does that. We don’t know how all these layers and neurons work, we could not build the network from scratch. We cannot engineer/build/create the correct weights, but we can approach them in training.

Also look at Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). The adversarial part is literally to train a network to detect bad AI generated output, and tweak the generative part based on that error to produce better output, rinse and repeat. Note this by definition includes a (specific) AI detector software, it requires it to work.

Right? A self-assessed skill which is never tested is a funny thing anyways. It boils down to “I believe I’m good at it because I believe my belief is correct”. Which in itself is shady, but then there are also incentives that people rather believe to be good, and those who don’t probably rather don’t speak up that much. Personally, I believe people lack the competence to make statements like these with any significant meaning.

Not sure if social media in general has failed. That particular point can be solved at the community level.

Create or join a community which by it’s guidelines restricts posting paywalled or otherwise bad content. Which explicitly encourages posting “liberated” content. Have moderation. Problem solved. Moderators will remove all which you dislike. All that remains is the solution you want.

“For agencies like the FTC to seriously consider action, there has to be harm to customers. But the sneaky formula that mobile developers have pioneered is one where the app itself is free, and the gameplay technically does exist in the application, so where’s the harm? Any rEaSoNaBlE viewer won’t be harmed. They will see and uninstall, and there’s disclosures, so who cares? But these companies aren’t targeting ‘the reasonable customers’, they are targeting the people with addictive personalities who get easily sucked in from a deceptive ad to a predatory product.”

Damn, that’s insane and evil. Like a drug cartel distributing free candies after school, with crystal meth inside. They just weather the storm, well knowing a few “customers” will stick.

I still don’t understand how this can work so well, which apparently it does given the numbers and scale. I have questions:

• Why bother making a “main product” at all, if people come for the mini game? Why not make the mini game addictive and predatory, save even more development costs and get less negative reviews as a bonus? Like, why bother with the candy when you can legally sell meth?
• Why is this exclusive to the mobile market? The same games, ads and arguments could be made for any other platform with “free”, downloadable content like PC. Why don’t they share their crack candies at college?

Many Lemmy users wish their niche communities would become more populated. For goals like that, the reputation of the platform is important. I also don’t want to get into defensive debates when revealing to someone that I use Lemmy.

Then let me spell it out: If ChatGPT convinces a child to wash their hands with self-made bleach, be sure to expect lawsuits and a shit storm coming for OpenAI.

If that occurs, but no liability can be found on the side of ChatGPT, be sure to expect petitions and a shit storm coming for legislators.

We generally expect individuals and companies to behave in society with peace and safety in mind, including strangers and minors.

Liabilities and regulations exist for these reasons.