The catarrhine who invented a perpetual motion machine, by dreaming at night and devouring its own dreams through the day.
The alt right obsesses over the Roman empire, but ignores the republic, as if Julius Caesar and Octavius were the origin of everything. As such I’m not surprised that they don’t learn about what caused the fall of the republic. (A century or so of oppressed masses and greedy elites did it.)
And, even when it comes to the empire, they’re busier cherry-picking examples that show that the grass was greener, the men were manlier, the women were chaster, and dogs barked quieter.
At least when it comes to languages, the eurocentrism and subjectivity are being addressed for at least a century. Sapir for example proposed that the “classical languages” weren’t just two but five - Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Latin, Sanskrit. And the definition became roughly “varieties with a heavy and outlasting impact outside their native communities”. (Personally I’d also add Sumerian, Quechua and Nahuatl to that list. But that’s just me.)
Additionally plenty linguists see the idea of “classic” not as specific languages, but as a potential stage of a language, assigned retroactively to the period when its prestige and cultural production were specially strong. For example, Classical Ge’ez is defined as the one from centuries XIII~XIV.
The text says “several”, but it mentions only four components (gdebi, apturl, aptdaemon and mintcommon-aptdaemon) merged into two (captain, aptkit). It doesn’t look like much, and typically the Mint project is responsible to not claim to maintain more than it can maintain¹.
In special, I remember gdebi being broken for quite a while², so this hints that Mint’s goal is to get properly maintained replacements.
Typically “nurture” includes those things. You’re right though - it isn’t just our parents and childhood, it’s everybody through our whole lives. We only stop changing when we die.
In that case it should be fine. Just eat the rich, fuck cars, and let the trolley run its course.
Does the trolley run Linux?
Nurture or nature?
Yes.
I didn’t know that I needed to know about Jevons’ paradox. Such a simple but brilliant reasoning.
You’ll get less pollution and crash deaths if, instead of trying to improve cars, society improved transportation methods that compete with cars: walking, biking, public transport, so goes on. They either don’t show those issues, or show them in a meaningfully lower level.
Yes, it is. I don’t disagree with thetreesaysbark and you on that.
However I think that a circlejerk formed by similar-minded individuals gathering into the same place is far, far more benign than your “typical” circlejerk revolving around social pressure.
Also, let us [humans in general] not fool ourselves into believing that circlejerks are avoidable. Humanity boils down to “circlejerking hairless chimps” anyway.
I mean, making a post about hating on Reddit, on Lemmy, is pretty circlejerky too at this point.
There’s a key difference, at least when it comes to hating Reddit.
Most [all?] users here have actual, informed reasons to hate Reddit, from past experiences with the site. They aren’t simply joining some bandwagon due to social expectations to bend to the crowd.
Really my point is there are enough things to criticize about LLMs and people’s use of them, this seems like a really silly one to try and push.
The comment that you’re replying to is fairly specifically criticising the usage of the word “hallucination” to misrepresent the nature of the undesirable LLM output, in the context of people selling you stuff by what it is not.
It is not “pushing” another “thing to criticise about LLMs”. OK? I have my fair share of criticism against LLMs themselves, but that is not what I’m doing right now.
Continuing (and torturing) that analogy, […] max_int or small buffers.
When we extend analogies they often break in the process. That’s the case here.
Originally the analogy works because it shows a phony selling a product by what it is not. By making the phony to precompute 4*10¹² equations (a completely unrealistic situation), he stops being a phony to become a muppet doing things the hard way.
If it were the case that there had only been one case of a hallucination with LLMs, I think we could pretty safely call that a malfunction
If it happens 0.000001% of the time, I think we could still call it a malfunction and that it performs better than a lot of software.
Emphases mine. Those “ifs” represent a completely unrealistic situation, that does not show anything useful about the real situation.
We know that LLMs output “hallucinations” way more than just once, or 0.000001% of the time. They’re common enough to show you how LLMs work.
Rumors that Valve was working on a portable gaming unit had emerged in May 2021
Perhaps. The timing fits considerably better than the other alternatives mentioned until now.
I don’t rule out the possibility that COVID made some people think further on how they interact with software, and that indirectly promoted some Linux usage. However, I don’t think that it would create continuous pressure encouraging adoption, that keeps going on four years later.
Another reason why I don’t think that COVID is the cause is the timing: the “bulk” of the social impact happened in early 2020, but the slope seems to start near the end of 2020, almost early 2021.
To make it worse decision makers - regardless of country - are typically old and clueless about “this computer stuff”. As such they literally don’t see the problem.
I don’t think that it’s due to COVID, as it’s an upwards slope instead of just a spike, or spike + plateau.
What happened around '20?
I’m asking that because, the way that I’m reading this graph, there’s a plateau between '15 and '20, and then a slope upwards.
I did read the paper fully, but I’m going to comment mostly based on the challenged that the OP refers to.
My belief is that the article is accurate on highlighting that the Fediverse on its own is not enough to reclaim the internet. However, it’s still a step in the right direction and should be nurtured as such.
Discoverability as there is no central or unified index
Yes, discovery is harder within a federated platform than a centralised one. However the indices that we use don’t need to be “central” or “unified” - it’s completely fine if they’re decentralised and brought up by third parties, as long as people know about them.
Like Lemmy Explorer for example; it’s neither “central” nor “unified”, it’s simply a tool made by a third party, and yet it solves the issue nicely.
Complicated moderation efforts due to its decentralized nature
This implicit idea, that moderation efforts should be co-ordinated across a whole platform, quickly leads to unsatisfied people - either because they don’t feel safe or because they don’t feel like they can say what they think. Or both.
Let us not fool ourselves by falsely believing that moderation always boils down to “remove CSAM and Nazi” (i.e. “remove things that decent people universally consider as bad”). Different communities want to be moderated in different, sometimes mutually exclusive, ways. And that leads to decentralised moderation efforts.
In other words: “this is not a bug, this is a feature.”
[Note: the above is not an endorsement of Lemmy’s blatant lack of mod tools.]
Interoperability between instances of different types (e.g., Lemmy and Funkwhale)
Because yeah, the interoperability between Twitter, YouTube and Reddit is certainly better. /s
I’m being cheeky to highlight that, as problematic that the interoperability between instances of different types might be in the Fediverse, it’s still something that you don’t typically see in traditional media.
Concentration on a small number of large instances
Yes, user concentration into a few instances is a problem, as it gives the instance admins too much power. However, there’s considerably less room for those admins to act in a user-hostile way, before users pack their stuff up and migrate - because the cost of switching federated instances is smaller than the cost of switching non-federated platforms.
The risk of commercial capture by Big Tech
Besides what I said above, on the concentration of users, consider the fact that plenty Fediverse instances defederated Threads. What is this, if not the usage of the Fediverse features to resist commercial capture?
It gets worse, when you remember that there’s no dividing line between harmful and healthy content. Some content is always harmful, some is by default healthy, but there’s a huge gradient of content that needs to be consumed in small amounts - not doing it leads to alienation, and doing it too much leads to a cruel worldview.
This is doubly true when dealing with kids and adolescents. They need to know about the world, and that includes the nasty bits; but their worldviews are so malleable that, if all you show them is nasty bits, they normalise it inside their heads.
It’s all about temperance. And yet temperance is exactly the opposite of what those self-reinforcing algorithms do. If you engage too much with content showing nasty shit, the algo won’t show you cats being derps to “balance things out”. No, it’ll show you even more nasty shit.
It gets worse due to profiling, mentioned in the text. Splitting people into groups to dictate what they’re supposed to see leads to the creation of extremism.
In the light of the above, I think that both Kaung and Cai are missing the point.
Kaung believes that children+teens would be better if they stopped using smartphones; sorry but that’s stupid, it’s proposing to throw the baby out with the dirty bathtub water.
Cai on the other hand is proposing nothing but a band-aid. We don’t need companies to listen to teens to decide what we should be seeing; we need them to stop altogether deciding what teens and everyone else should be seeing.
Ah, and about porn, mentioned on the text: porn is at best a small example of a bigger issue, if not a red herring distracting people from the issue altogether.
I wouldn’t call pasting verbatim training data hallucination when it fits the prompt. It’s not necessarily making stuff up.
I’ve seen it being called hallucination plenty of times. Because the output is undesirable - even if it satisfies the prompt, it is not something you’d want the end user to see, as it shows that the whole thing is built upon the unpaid labour of everyone who uses the internet.
How would you call it? Only by their specific issues? Or would you use a general term, like “error” or “wrong”?
Calling the output by what it is (false, or immoral, or nonsensical) instead of a catch-all would be a progress, I think.
True that.
Weirdly enough (or perhaps not surprisingly) I see the same here with Bolsonaro supporters; there’s a disproportionally high amount of them among classicists, even if humanities as a whole leans heavily to the left.