lily33 @ lily33 @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

253

Joined

2 yr. ago

The platform where bot farms are still effective

Spoken like they're no longer effective on the other platforms.

Oh, no! Someone's publishing open models better than our closed ones! How are we going to make profit now? Do something! Quick!!!

They're already also offering 6-day certs, so capacity isn't a problem.

How can someone support them in good faith? I'll focus on China, but here are some reasons:

For starters, I don't believe that it's possible to impose on a society from the outside to accept LGBTQ people. For example, making LGBTQ acceptance as a precondition on having good relations with China has literally 0% chance of improving life of LGBTQ people there. It's more likely to backfire. On the other hand, having good relations, and allowing cultural exchange to happen naturally, can - and I think, over the last few decades before relations soured, has - improved LGBTQ acceptance there.

Also, amongst superpowers, China has a relatively good track record when in comes to using military force. They have had conflicts with neighboring countries, but it's nothing compared to the wars the US or Russia (and USSR) have fought.

Finally (this one I don't share, but I think it can be held in good faith), someone might not care about human rights all that much. For example, if you consider government-sponsored murders to be just the same as any other - not better, but also not worse - then even if you include Tienanmen Square and other murders by the government, the murder rate in China is still lower than most of the world.

How does it compare to NixOS?

I'd be very skeptical of claims that Debian maintainers actually audit the code of each piece of software they package. Perhaps they make some brief reviews, but actually scrutinizing every line for hidden backdoors is just not feasible.

Any accessibility service will also see the "hidden links", and while a blind person with a screen reader will notice if they wonder off into generated pages, it will waste their time too. Especially if they don't know about such "feature" they'll be very confused.

Also, I don't know about you, but I absolutely have a use for crawling X, Google maps, Reddit, YouTube, and getting information from there without interacting with the service myself.

I would love to think so. But the word "verified" suggests more.

That makes me think, perhaps, you might be able to set it to exec("stuff") or True...

while allowing legitimate users and verified crawlers to browse normally.

What is a "verified crawler" though? What I worry about is, is it only big companies like Google that are allowed to have them now?

I agree that it's difficult to enforce such a requirement on individuals. That said, I don't agree that nobody cares for the content they post. If they have "something cool they made with AI generation" - then it's not a big deal to have to mark it as AI-generated.

Is that something new? As in, has WaPo not been willing to go after Meta in a similar manner before?

So, essentially, they wanted to enter the Chinese market so much that they were even willing to comply with the local rules and regulations!

This is such a big secret, we really needed a whistleblower to tell us that!

An intelligence service monitors social media. They may as well have said, "The sky is blue."

More interesting is,

Sharing as a force multiplier

-- OpenAI

Do you know of a provider is actually private? The few privacy policies I checked all had something like "We might keep some of your data for some time for anti-abuse or other reasons"...

Too bad that's based on macros. A full preprocessor could require that all keywords and names in each scope form a prefix code, and then allow us to freely concatenate them.

Aren't USAid grants public?

No, that's because social media is mostly used for informal communication, not scientific discourse.

I guarantee you that I would not use lemmy any differently if posts were authenticated with private keys than I do now when posts are authenticated by the user instance. And I'm sure most people are the same.

Edit: Also, people can already authenticate the source, by posting a direct link there. Signing wouldn't really add that much to that.

Sure, but that has little to do with disinformation. Misleading/wrong posts don't usually spoof the origin - they post the wrong information in their own name. They might lie about the origin of their "information", sure - but that's not spoofing.