(the link is for the past week, so will be less and less accurate to the july first start date as the days pass by)
The only two reviews related to the drama are specifically in reaction to the alleged review bombing. The other negative reviews don't mention anything related to the drama at all, and so the increase is probably just due to the streisand effect.
I'll list the two drama-related reviews here trimmed down to the drama-relevant parts only (not the full reviews):
"Drumming up fake drama about a review bombing that never happened to artificially inflate your positive review count through fan counteraction is gross."
— Full Review
"Wasn't gonna leave a review but Ludwig and Pirate Software cried review bombing so I'm leaving an honest review to combat the non-existent bombing."
— Full Review
As you can see by these excerpts, both of them were made AFTER the allegations of review bombing. They're not part of the review bombing itself that was being talked about.
Isn't the Atari just a game console, not a chess engine?
Like, Wikipedia doesn't mention anything about the Atari 2600 having a built-in chess engine.
If they were willing to run a chess game on the Atari 2600, why did they not apply the same to ChatGPT? There are custom GPTs which claim to use a stockfish API or play at a similar level.
Like this, it's just unfair. Both platforms are not designed to deal with the task by themselves, but one of them is given the necessary tooling, the other one isn't. No matter what you think of ChatGPT, that's not a fair comparison.
There are custom GPTs which claim to play at a stockfish level or be literally stockfish under the hood (I assume the former is still the latter just not explicitly). Haven't tested them, but if they work, I'd say yes. An LLM itself will never be able to play chess or do anything similar, unless they outsource that task to another tool that can. And there seem to be GPTs that do exactly that.
As for why we need ChatGPT then when the result comes from Stockfish anyway, it's for the natural language prompts and responses.
why don't they program them to look up math programs and outsource chess to other programs when they're asked for that stuff?
They will, when it makes sense for what the AI is designed to do. For example, ChatGPT can outsource image generation to an AI dedicated to that. It also used to calculate math using python for me, but that doesn't seem to happen anymore, probably due to security issues with letting the AI run arbitrary python code.
ChatGPT however was not designed to play chess, so I don't see why OpenAI should invest resources into connecting it to a chess API.
I think especially since adding custom GPTs, adding this kind of stuff has become kind of unnecessary for base ChatGPT. If you want a chess engine, get a GPT which implements a Stockfish API (there seem to be several GPTs that do). For math, get the Wolfram GPT which uses Wolfram Alpha's API, or a different powerful math GPT.
Markdown is a markup language, which can be used by users to indicate formatting hints to the underlying system. For example, you want a text to be bold, a markup language lets you tell that to the website in a way it understands.
Older markup languages tended to be verbose and complicated. For example, this is a numbered list in BBCode, which is the classic forum markup language: [ol][li]Item one[/li][li]Item two[/li][/ol].
Markdown keeps it simple and intuitive, for the most part.
1. item 1
2. item 2
The above is a numbered list in Markdown. Much simpler than the BBCode version. Simple enough that people like you can do it without even being aware of Markdown at all.
*This is cursive text*
**This is bold text**
# this is a heading
## this is a smaller heading
###### usually up to six levels are supported, but this might differ based on the implementation (my instance seems to make all of these the same size)
> this is a quote
it can span multiple lines too
this is a bullet point list:
- item 1
- item 2
[Links are more complicated, but still as easy as they can be](https://example.org/)
The above doesn't actually display formatted because I used a code block to show the Markdown as written. The below is how the above actually displays:
This is cursive textThis is bold text
this is a heading
this is a smaller heading
usually up to six levels are supported, but this might differ based on the implementation (my instance seems to make all of these the same size)
edit: this is what the original creator of Markdown has to say on the matter:
Markdown is intended to be as easy-to-read and easy-to-write as is feasible.
Readability, however, is emphasized above all else. A Markdown-formatted document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking like it’s been marked up with tags or formatting instructions. While Markdown’s syntax has been influenced by several existing text-to-HTML filters — including Setext, atx, Textile, reStructuredText, Grutatext, and EtText — the single biggest source of inspiration for Markdown’s syntax is the format of plain text email.
To this end, Markdown’s syntax is comprised entirely of punctuation characters, which punctuation characters have been carefully chosen so as to look like what they mean. E.g., asterisks around a word actually look like emphasis. Markdown lists look like, well, lists. Even blockquotes look like quoted passages of text, assuming you’ve ever used email.
I personally prefer this method of blocking, because you're not a moderator or administrator and thus should not get to customize the experience of other users than yourself.
Yes, there's the legitimate use case of stopping mass downvoters. But two-way blocking can also be (and has been) used maliciously. You can slander someone and then block them, making them unable to defend themselves or even know what happened, for example.
Not on Lemmy itself, no, but other platforms on the fediverse might have one. Apps might have one.
Mbin has one for sure. So all you need to take a look at your karma is to hop over to fedia.io and look at your profile from there.
Since my point is that practical use doesn't matter to them and it's just about numbers going up, I think this counts.
There's a difference between knowing my baker is a nazi and being unaware of it. It's morally wrong to be knowingly supporting a nazi, whether it's by buying their product or by donating to them directly doesn't matter.
It's true that bread stays bread regardless of the baker's political stance. But it's not like the nazi baker is the only one in town. Just get your bread from a different baker. Bread is bread. The point of alternatives is that you can pick your source, whom you want to support. And that's what OP is suggesting.
You ran into the trap of taking "fediverse" at face value. It neither invented nor monopolizes federation. E-Mail is federated and has nothing to do with the fediverse. Wikipedia's page on federation lists the very internet itself as the prime example.
Not implementing ActivityPub doesn't mean Matrix isn't federated.
I assume that "may" is an unintentional mistyping of "my", right?
I definitely agree. I want to point out errors, but the issue is most people do not want errors to be pointed out and see it as nitpicking at best, or an act of aggression at worst.
I disagree that commenting for the sake of commenting is a good idea. Quality over quantity, a single meaningful discussion is superior to a sea of low effort garbage. I also want the fediverse to take off, but not at the cost of adopting modern Reddit culture.
a “good post”, by this metric, is really just a post that baits lots and lots of engagement
That's what the FEP (Fediverse Enhancement Proposal) system is for.
Piefied is the only project among the three (Lemmy/Mbin/Piefed) to give a list of supported FEPs.