LukeZaz @ LukeZaz @beehaw.org

Posts

6

Comments

233

Joined

1 yr. ago

In what way is it meaningfully different? Does the intent of the creators of an LLM – a kind of system notorious for being a black box – fundamentally change the outcomes of what it says? It's spouting propaganda either way.

Please don’t be deliberately obtuse. You can do better than that.

Condescending attitude aside, don't bring up an irrelevant scenario if you don't want me to point out its irrelevance.

Are we in a court?

Reading philosophy texts that were written a hundred years ago and haphazardly translated 75 years ago can be a challenge.

For a human, at that. I get that you feel it works for you, but personally, I would trust an LLM to understand it (insofar as that's a thing they can do at all) even less.

There's 2-3 users who post about China/Russia to an extraordinary degree. I could mention them here, but for the sake of avoiding potential harassment (however unlikely) I'd rather not publicly single them out. Suffice to say if you spend a decent amount of time here you probably know who they are.

I find it obsessive and obnoxious at best. At worst, I start to wonder if there are more accounts doing it than there are people behind them.

That's a distinction without a difference.

I'll be honest, I really couldn't care less if Broken Windows theory is correct or not. I don't think it'd even matter so much whether it was, provided our response to it was a kind and gentle one that actually tries to help people rather than disappear them.

Unfortunately, such an approach is one that cops are fundamentally incompatible with.

Sorry, what? I don't know where you think you are, but this site is pretty pro-Palestine. Even the pro-Israel people here don't sound as insane as what you just said.

I really do not understand how you would manage to read my posts so poorly. Maybe you need to spend more time cooling off before you start writing, or maybe something's going on in your life, I don't know. I do not know you.

Either way, several of the things you mention here were once again huge misinterpretations of me or outright ignore things I've said, and it's clearly not worth it trying to talk to you anymore. I can no longer trust in your interactions being in good faith. Goodbye.

I have already expressed my doubts as to the trustworthiness of the article's sources regarding the companies in question being controlled by North Korea directly, so I don't understand why you'd reference the very same article as a justification as to why my suspicions are wrong.

The rest of your post is a lot of stuff that I've heard time and time again. Things like "North Korea is a dystopian hellscape where everyone is dying to leave or dying outright" is the kind of thing that I keep seeing people state as though it's common sense. That is to say, it's obvious, and needs no further thought or consideration. And the way NK is described, you'd think it was the perfection of totalitarianism, with scarcely any flaws in its population control. I find this level of success a difficult sell. This is all worsened by the fact that the United States has a vested interest in people believing that places like China and NK are basically Mordor. Put them all together, and I'd hope you can see why I might not take this all at face value.

But I'm honestly not interested in debating if North Korea's really as hellish as so many have said. I think it's an awful country with an awful, dictatorial government, and whether or not it's as awful as is claimed is not something I care for. I can't fix the place.

But I do care for the defaulting assumption of bad faith on my part and repeated uncharitable readings of my posts. I at no point ever made any claims about Tardigrada, nor have I cast any doubt upon their character anywhere in this thread. My criticisms were aimed squarely at the article and the sources it used. Coming back to this thread to see paragraphs written at me and everyone else with a similar opinion to me that do feel like they cast doubt upon my character is not a fun thing to see in my inbox when I come to the site.

It is impossible for civilians to do this. In an absolute sense.

I know of nothing whatsoever that proves this. The article certainly doesn't clarify anything to that effect.

Lastly, the aggressive countering nature of this comment was unnecessary if you were merely seeking clarification.

It was four words, without any emphasis. I deliberately wrote my comment to be simple and calm. Any aggression you've interpreted is on you, not me, and I suspect you only read it that way due a to a pre-existing negative opinion of me.

How do you know?

A federal court in St Louis has indicted 14 North Koreans for allegedly being part of a long-running conspiracy aimed at extorting funds from US companies and funneling money to Pyongyang’s weapons programmes.

Not gonna lie, I don't really feel comfortable these days taking a U.S. courts' word on this. Sounds more likely to me that this is just a result of companies that happen to be run from North Korea and that this only "[funnels] money to Pyongyang's weapons programmes" in the same way that buying something off Amazon "funnels" money to DARPA.

In which case, this only really makes sense to get mad at if you find yourself having particular hate for things like "the North Korean economy having slightly more money in it," or "U.S. sanctions getting bypassed." Personally, I don't care about either. The use of stolen identities is awful if true, sure, so I get being mad about that, but that happens plenty enough domestically, so I'm not really sure why it's particularly deserving of a news article here.

I agree with you that "free market" standpoints aren't very good places to criticize this decision from – except to point out the hypocrisy of the right-wing, which I do think the original comment was trying to do – but it has to be said that nobody is obligated to criticize both China and the U.S. equally in order to not be a hypocrite.

One simple example of why would be that most if not all users here have absolutely no say at all as to what China does. There aren't a lot of Chinese citizenry here. But there are a lot of Americans. It so follows that it makes sense to criticize the U.S. more, because many people on Beehaw can actually do something about it, especially in aggregate.

It doesn't help to criticize China much either, anyway. China's bad, yes; we know. Even among honest-to-god capital-C Communist circles, China is controversial. Posts about it tend to do three things: 1) Create a sort of misery/anger circle-jerk, 2) arbitrarily and unnecessarily signal to others that you aren't a tankie, when nobody should really need to clarify that in most scenarios, and 3) further U.S. propaganda interests by taking people's time and attention away from issues they're more likely to be able to do something about.

I'm obviously not in favor of forgetting what China's done, either, but there's a happy middle-ground I think a lot of Western-centric sites sail right past, and I don't think any of it is helpful.

Some American or other company should just hurry up and make TokTik and rake in the bucks.

Google's already been trying with Youtube Shorts. Let's not encourage them.

But who am I kidding? It would just result in more militant policing and oppression of the working class.

Which would just worsen the issue all around. If this happened, I'd be putting money on a civil war developing.

This is tragic. Nobody should be gunned down in the street like this.

I agree. Which is why we should address the problem by dealing with the absolutely ghoulish situation that is American health care, profiteering, and late-stage capitalism writ large. If there's one thing I am very happy about, it is the fact that the number one thing being talked about due to this – besides the shooting itself – is the problem that caused it and so many other deaths; not a preference for vigilante justice, not guns, not terrorists, but a desire for profit above all else, regardless of how many die from lack of care as a result.

To be clear, I suspect you agree, at least with the "ghoulish situation that is American health care" part. But what I want to highlight here is that I don't think almost anyone wants to live in a world where things like this happen, much less one where so many of us are happy about it. In the end, though, we don't get a choice. We live in that world, and it is far more important for us to worry about fixing that than it is for us to wring our hands when one of the 1% dies while the millions he's killed got nowhere near as much sympathy.

Murder is obviously bad. Even when it's justified, it is a tragedy, and indicative of a failure to find a better solution. But this is a failure of the system people like Brian Thompson helped to create. On some other sites, I see a lot of people saying things like what you've done here. They spend time focusing on how his death is tragic, prefacing anything else they wish to say with statements to that effect as though they were warding against a curse. Individually, I don't find this to be a problem. But when a lot of people are doing it? I think that's an insult to his victims.

Eh, I'll take it. Bluesky's learned some lessons from the past, for what it's worth. It has more than a few features that make the network lock-in less intense, so while I fully expect it to enshittify, I do think it'll be less severe of an affair than it was for Twitter.

What I'm more upset about is Threads. I can't think of anything redeeming about that place.

I can't say I'm too confident about data that was obtained by methods including 1) Facebook data collection (we trust that now?), 2) machine learning and 3) potentially nebulous, unspecific definitions of various political groups. Still, allow me to indulge in some confirmation bias, if you will:

This shouldn't surprise anyone, if you ask me. People are stressed and limited on time. Of course they'll take shortcuts!

On places like Bluesky, most articles, videos or news content I'd share would have more to do with how much I trust the person posting or sharing it than with its main body of content. I figure that someone I value has read it, and so I skip it, because reading it would feel like work and I have to deal with enough of that as it is.

Places like here, I take more caution, but as a direct consequence of that you'll notice I really don't post very much at all. Comments, sure, but that's because those are more my opinion than anything else. I don't have the bandwidth to put through more effort than I already am.

RCV is definitely better than FPTP, but basically everything is. From what I've seen, the only thing mathematically worse than what we have now would be a random pick.

I strongly prefer Approval because ranked voting systems in general tend to have glitches. Unranked ones still suffer from issues due to strategic voting, but no moreso than their ranked counterparts. From there I prefer Approval to Score and others simply because Approval is easy to explain ("vote for as many as you want instead of just one" — there you go, one sentence!) and thus easier to sell to people who don't understand it.

Still though, there's a lot of options for sure. If you're interested in learning more, there's a couple of interactive articles about voting systems I came across (one while writing this comment); this first one by Nicky Case is a great starter, and this followup by Jameson Quinn gives a bit more detail for some stuff, particularly about strategic voting.

I still wish more alternative voting systems were being considered. RCV is the conversation-dominating option, but it's a far cry from the best, and I'd much rather Score or Approval Voting got passed than RCV basically anywhere.