Pamasich

Why is Fediverse moderation, even more Draconian than Reddit?

No central oversight. Reddit can theoretically remove the worst of the worst, but the same doesn’t apply on the fediverse. Not across instances at least. Theoretically that lack of control is why we have defederation, but no one is going to defederate over some mods being extra draconian.

As for why it’s even at a similar level to Reddit in the first place, it’s because despite the fediverse’s superiority complex, moderation on Reddit is organic, and so it is here. It’s not like Reddit tells them to be the way they are, moderators choose to be that way. And there’s no reason why they would choose to be different on the fediverse.

I think it’s worth remembering that people who seek the power of authority aren’t usually the best people. I’m not saying this applies to all moderators, but those that become moderators for the power it gives them aren’t going to be friends, no matter which platform they’re on. It’s not like the platform makes them bad, it just enables them by giving them the power.

Why is it so hard to find a non left leaning place on the Internet?

There ARE right wing Lemmy instances. They’re just usually defederated by the ones leaning left. There’s also /r/conservative on Reddit.

“You know I kind of feel Israel has a right to defend itself ya know?”

This one is definitely a big problem imo. Like, I’m not in the pro-Israel camp, but I think it’s clear this side of the fediverse is currently an echo chamber that isn’t welcoming to opposing voices, especially on that topic. But also in regards to others like AI.

Reddit is a lot better in that regard. I think there is a point to fighting disinformation and bad faith actors, but that’s not reasoning if you then allow one side’s disinformation (like the whole “AI is completely useless” narrative which is just factually false, it’s being abused for tasks it’s wildly unsuited for, but that doesn’t make it useless for what it’s designed to do) or tolerate complete faith into your side’s propaganda.

Imo this is a big barrier to the fediverse currently. I can’t in good faith recommend the fediverse to people whom I know to be right-leaning, because I know they’re going to have a bad time here.

Even posting a Fox News article in the News areas will get your post removed…with a ban of course.

I do think a ban is excessive unless you’re a repeat offender, but… it makes sense to ban articles from a self-proclaimed entertainment network which only idiots would take as news (Fox News’s official position as argued in court, not my opinion) from a News community.

I was about to agree with you based on the title, but the rest of your post makes that a downvote instead.

Symbol is better, as superscript isn’t standard Markdown and isn’t necessarily supported by other software than Lemmy. Mbin for example doesn’t support it.

Not a reason not to use it of course, but it makes the symbol the more preferable choice.

This is incredibly shortsighted.

If you get Collective Shout to stop, another group might pick up where they left off.

The problem needs to be fixed, what you’re suggesting is just making the people currently abusing it stop doing so. That’s not a long term solution.

I’m so glad my country doesn’t use credit scores. Getting punished for utilization sounds cursed. If the limit is 10k, you should be able to use those 10k, not 1-2k, before penalties apply.

But americans don’t love Jesus, they shit all over his teachings and would deport him if he came to their doorstep.

Switzerland doesn’t have a capital.

Bern is de facto the capital, meaning going by the fact that most of the government is located in Bern.

Tbf, anything that isn’t AI Windows blocks the feature. Including regular Windows.

People just need to not fall for the scam edition and they don’t have to deal with this shit.

Here’s a question regarding the informed consent part.

The article gives the example of asking whether the recipient wants the AI’s answer shared.

“I had a helpful chat with ChatGPT about this topic some time ago and can share a log with you if you want.”

Do you (I mean generally people reading this thread, not OP specifically) think Lemmy’s spoiler formatting would count as informed consent if properly labeled as containing AI text? I mean, the user has to put in the effort to open the spoiler manually.

I feel like this is a clarity weakness with the fediverse currently.

Communities are bound by instance rules and punish any user posting to them based on those instance rules, but remote users are never informed in any way about a community’s instance’s rules.

But standards need to be made eventually based off something, or Fediverse will fail to deliver on its promise.

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.

Mbin has a form of this too. They’re still treated as separate posts, but visually grouped together and minimized.

I’ve noticed a LOT of generated memes and they tend to have positive votes

What’s the issue with that one in particular? Isn’t the entire point of a meme just whether it’s funny or not?

I mean, they’re low effort and unoriginal to begin with. The AI isn’t really changing anything about that.

I feel like memes is one of the few places where AI doesn’t hurt anyone at all.

Check the actual reviews.

(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.

Edit: fixed inaccurate -> accurate

When you post something, it is first posted to your own instance, then sent to the community, then the community sends it to its subscribers.

The authoritative source is always the one the originating user is from in ActivityPub.

I just asked ChatGPT too (your exact prompt there) and it did give me the correct solution.

1. Take the child over
2. Go back alone
3. Take the candy over
4. Bring the child back
5. Take the priest over
6. Go back alone
7. Take the child over again

It didn’t comment on moral concerns, though it did applaud itself for keeping the priest and the child separated without elaborating on why.

Nöd i dem Fall, nei. Ussert mer wett da ide Schwiiz go wohne, bringt Schwiizerdüütsch nöd würkli öppis. S Hochdüütsche degäge chan mer au da bruuche. S lohnt sich also viel meeh.

Mer chan ja au Schwiizerdüütsch lerne wenn mer s Hochdüütsche langsam chan. Sött denn au viel eifacher sii.

Schwiizerdüütsch lerne isch au viel schwärer ohni Immersion wills halt eifach chum Lernmaterial dezue git. Und natürlich viel weniger Regle, wenn doch Regle bim lerne hälfet. Somit dänke ich nöd, dass Schwiizerdüütsch em Titel da grächt wird.

Then the actual chess isn’t LLM.

And neither did the Atari 2600 win against ChatGPT. Whatever game they ran on it did.

That’s my point here. The fact that neither Atari 2600 nor ChatGPT are capable of playing chess on their own. They can only do so if you provide them with the necessary tools. Which applies to both of them. Yet only one of them was given those tools here.

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.

Edit: Given the existing replies and downvotes, I think this comment is being misunderstood. I would like to try clarifying again what I meant here.

First of all, I’d like to ask if this article is satire. That’s the only way I can understand the replies I’ve gotten that critized me on grounds of the marketing aspect of LLMs (when the article never brings up that topic itself, nor did I). Like, if this article is just some tongue in cheek type thing about holding LLMs to the standards they’re advertised at, I can understand both the article and the replies I’ve gotten. But the article never suggests so itself. So my assumption when writing my comment was that this is not the case and it is serious.

The Atari is hardware. It can’t play chess on its own. To be able to, you need a game for it which is inserted. Then the Atari can interface with the cartridge and play the game.

ChatGPT is an LLM. Guess what, it also can’t play chess on its own. It also needs to interface with a third party tool that enables it to play chess.

Neither the Atari nor ChatGPT can directly, on their own, play chess. This was my core point.

I merely pointed out that it’s unfair that one party in this comparison is given the tool it needs (the cartridge), but the other party isn’t. Unless this is satire, I don’t see how marketing plays a role here at all.

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.