If you're referring to symbolic AI, I don't think that the AI scene will turn 180° and ditch NN-based approaches. Instead what I predict is that we'll see hybrids - where a symbolic model works as the "core" of the AI, handling the logic, and a neural network handles the input/output.
Or even if they had an instance-wide rule saying "don't criticise Russia or China here". It's fine as long as the rules are clear.
But no, instead they libel the users criticising either, claiming that they violated rule #1 (TL;DR "no bigots"). Even when the criticism is clearly against the government.
And then you get a bunch of 11yos eating that ban message for breakfast, because they're full of gullibleness and don't get the purpose of this utterance dumb fucks.
Side note the main issue with .ml is transparency. It's fine if the admins of an instance implement whatever rules they want in their instance; however, once they start enforcing hidden rules disguised as violations of the listed rules, they're being liars and treating the users as stupid things to be herded, not as human beings.
EDIT: as people noticed I'm not including .world comms to not encourage even further concentration of activity into the largest instance. Decentralisation is important. Also I'm adding stuff that you guys suggest.
for specialised memes, as the category is rather large:
I believe that the current LLM paradigm is a technological dead end. We might see a few additional applications popping up, in the near future; but they'll be only a tiny fraction of what was promised.
My bet is that they'll get superseded by models with hard-coded logic. Just enough to be able to correctly output "if X and Y are true/false, then Z is false", without fine-tuning or other band-aid solutions.
However once they lose the googlebux, a meaningful part of the revenue stream will be donations. And features implemented because of donators asking for them are, typically, things that we users desire.
May I be frank? I suspect that, in the long run, Mozilla not getting this money will actually benefit Firefox. Sure, so exec will get pissed as they won't get 5.6 million dollars a year, and Firefox won't get some weird nobody-asked-for feature that'll be ditched some time later; but I think that they'll focus better on the browser this way. Specially because whoever is paying the dinner is the one picking the dish, and with a higher proportion of their effective income coming from donations, what users want will stop being so neglected.
They aren't different sources of info, but parts of the same process. And they're three:
The utterance. Like you said, the words and how they're arranged and such.
Your internalised knowledge. It's all that bundle of meanings that you associate with each word, plus your ability to parse how those words are arranged.
The context. It's what dictates how you're going to use your internalised knowledge to interpret the utterance; for example, selecting one among many possible meanings.
Without any of those three things, you get 0% of the info. They're all essential.
So no, it is not solipsistic at all, since it depends on things outside your head (the utterance and the context), and those are shared by multiple individuals.
Lack of moderation tools link // The choice to defederate from an instance can also be based on our inability to effectively moderate that instance’s users. As of now, only two of our defederations are on this basis (lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works), and we hope to eventually refederate with both of them.
It was less about LW and SJW being "poorly moderated", and more about being large enough that they were bringing a lot of mod work for Beehaw.
IIRC when that happened lemm.ee was still small. (Note that the page was last updated 8m ago.)
Yes, it is a problem - depending on your tastes "subscribed" won't be enough. But going "subscribed" and then "all" is bound to show less political posts than going straight for "all".
[Stephen Smith] This article is a great example of a trend I don't think companies realize they've started yet: They have killed the golden goose of user-generated content for short-term profit. // Who would willingly contribute to a modern-day YouTube, Reddit, StackOverflow, or Twitter knowing that they are just feeding the robots that will one day replace them?
You don't even need robots replacing humans, or people believing so. All you need is people feeling that you're profiting at their expense.
Also obligatory "If you're not paying for the product, then you are the product".
No worries - plus the whole thing is damn counter-intuitive, both "sounds fusing together but still conveying two phonemes" and "that sound was analysed as one phoneme, now as another" are kind of weird.
Yeah, it doesn't. Specially not for stuff like butter, as it's really hard to measure a "normal" tablespoon.
(It could be worse though. My grandma's measurements were basically "put an amount of [ingredient]", "aah, you eyeball it", or "enough to fill that dish". I guess cup/tbsp/tsp is a progress from that.)
We know that the modern /u:/ is not from that old /w/ because other words followed the same change - even words without /w/, like "moon", "poop" (yup) or "boot". In fact it's how the digraph ⟨oo⟩ became associated with the sound.
The case of "hwo"→"who" is a bit more complicated. As you said the "wh" digraph used to be "hw"; the change happened in Early Modern times, and it was likely for readability - less sequential short strokes = easier to read. People around those times did other weird stuff like respelling "u" as "o", as in the word "luue"→"loue" (modern "love"), for the same reason.
However, later on that /hw/ sequence of phonemes started merging into a single sound, [ʍ]: like [w] you round your lips to pronounce it, but like [h] you don't vibrate your vocal folds. And if that [ʍ] happened before a rounded vowel - like [o:] or similar - it was reanalysed as a plain /h/. So for words like "who", it's like the "w" was dropped, just like in "two", but in a really roundabout way.
And, before non-rounded vowels, that [ʍ] still survives in plenty dialects; for example, "when" as either [ʍɛn] or [wɛn]. This change is recent enough that you still have some speakers in NZ and USA who use [ʍ].
![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Perhaps.
Worst hypothesis the company gets completely bankrupt, but someone takes up the torch.