Yea it has made shit up sometimes. But you can use your brain and check the sources .. ? ChatGPT is just a more precise Google. You still have to check it yourself and use your head.
I watched the video, and he literally says that AI can be used as a more effective Google search. So clearly you didn't watch the video, or pay attention at all. The video is also just a giant ad for their merch.
I have a more nuanced take. AI is simultaneously untrustworthy and useful. For many queries, DuckDuckGo and Google are performing considerably worse than they used to, while Perplexity usually yields good results. Perplexity also handles complex queries traditional search engines just can't.
About a third of the time, Perplexity's text summary of what it found is inaccurate; it may even say the opposite of what a source does. Reading the sources and evaluating their reliability is no less important than with traditional search, but much of the time I think I wouldn't have found the same sources that way.
Of course there are other issues with AI, such as power usage and Perplexity in particular being known for aggressive web scraping.
Nuance and depth isn't as popular as I'd like on or off Lemmy.
Ah, but you see, I never claimed AI isn't useful. In fact, you can check my comment history. I've agreed AI is a very useful tool, I still think it shouldn't be used for ethical, social, and personal reasons
A problem with nuance is that people want to discuss the specifics and nuances of what they care about but for the most part won't do that on subjects for other people. So you need to tailor your responses to your audience. FWIW on Lemmy I see a lot more instances of people with specificly opposed takes where both sides have similar vote counts. So while it's not perfect it's better than most
You can theoretically have an ethical LLM. You can train one from the ground up on non-copyrighted materials using renewable energy.
But I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that it's not uncommon for technology to start off super inefficient. A computer used to take up an entire floor of an office building, and a hard drive with a few KB of storage used to be the size of a fridge.
Now you can have a system orders of magnitude more powerful that's the size of a postage stamp and consumes less than 1W of power.
Lots of things theoretically exist: a reasonable terms and conditions, a functioning DMV, a unified charging standard, etc. I'm going to focus my energy on things that are real and not hope someone decides to be morally upstanding. If you're arguing that the bullshit machine that spreads lies that actively harm people could become so ubiquitous that it fits in any electronic device if we just keep giving it money, then I'd say you're making my argument for me
Absolutely. I recently needed to satisfy auditors with a report on our network security. Our main guy was on leave, but I quickly got the evidence I needed with a few powershell commands that I would have previously spent way more time googling.
It's also decent at reports and short, impersonal emails to suppliers etc. It frees up a lot of my time to do actual work, and for that I think it's decent.
Like basically everything in life, the truth is between the extremes. For me it's useful, but doesn't replace me and my team. I'm neither an AI evangelist or detractor. It's just another tool.
I think ddg and Google are performing worse because of AI. Pushing their AI services and the tsunami of AI slop make a search harder than SEO did and deprioritizes fixing it.
I think current state-of-the-art AI is useful for when you are not having a novel thought.
I believe that AI, at least in the form of LLMs, is currently incapable of novelty in the sense of creating a new concept or a new thought with reason and purpose behind it.
For instance, if I was going to write a book, I might consult with LLMs about how to fill in the slow gaps or the dead spaces in my storyline and to fully come up with a completely fleshed out story that I would then write without its assistance.
My assumption is that anything that it fills in is going to be cobbled together from literally hundreds of thousands of other similar stories, and therefore it will not be new or unique in any way.
If I was really trying to push the envelope, I would then assume that the right thing to do would be that whatever it says is ordinary and common, and if I want to be extraordinary and uncommon, then I need to use that as a launch point for my own gap-filling content.
Therefore, I could use an LLM to write a good story with a new concept, a new premise, a new storyline that is relatively unique and original by using the LLM to clearly identify those things that are not.
I think it is useful with a constrained dataset. Like using it to summarize things about a dataset, or dumping documents into it and asked getting info about it (like Gemini in Google Drive).
It is not useful for general question using the whole-ass internet as a dataset.
Also I wish it was called something other than AI...it's just a word guesser FFS.
We should are least refer to inference LLMs as LLMs. The fact that if you asked it something like who is the current CS2 top team, it would give you the top team at the time it was trained is enough proof that the models effectively know nothing.
the only useful thing my company and collegues have fold for it is taking meeting notes. it just logs everything and summarizies stuff, and it's like 90% accurate, but it does make plenty of errors.
however, if i give a presentation with screen sharing, it can't do shit to summarize that.
Would it? I run a science fiction book club and there're a lot of arguments that if something achieved human level intelligence that it would immediately try to kill us, not become our perfect servants
I'd completely forgotten about this show. But your comment made me start a rewatch 3 days ago, and man, it's better than I remembered. Really has me hooked, and I just started season 2 now. Thanks!
"It was a morality core they installed after I flooded the Enrichment Center with a deadly neurotoxin to make me stop flooding the Enrichment Center with a deadly neurotoxin."
i actively zone out when anyone higher up than me talks about copilot or chat gpt. i also dressed down a colleague for using chat gpt for a stupid simple task.
how to say with this. I see pretty much an equal split between ai is best thing ever, ai will doom us all, and like ai has some uses and may get more but we need to make sure any use is worth the energy usage.
As a software developer I fully agree. People bash on it constantly here but the fact is is that it's required for our jobs now. I just made it through a job hunt and every tech screen I did they not only insisted on me using AI, but they figured how much I was using too.
The fact is is that like it or not it does speed us up, and it is a tool in our toolbelt. You don't have to trust it 100% or blindly accept what it does, but you do need to be able to use it. Refusing to use it is like refusing to use the designer for WinForms 20 years ago, or refusing to use an IDE at work. You're going to be at a massive disadvantage to your competing jobseekers who are more than happy to use AI.
That's dumbshits using it to do their job for them and trusting the output blindly. If you're using LLMs to get over the occasional hump they're awesome time savers.
I review take home assignments and mostly we receive AI submissions. It's easy to tell when they aren't AI though because we get thoughtful comments about why one choice was made over another, and comments on the higher level view that only come from product context and experience. I don't think one single fully ai-created submission has made it passed the code review part.
See it's hard as an interviewer because for the first time ever I lost points at one place because I didn't use AI at all, and they almost didn't say yes to me. Their feedback quite literally was that it functioned well, but I could have got it done faster with AI.
Seems pointless to test you on anything that could be done by ai, otherwise why even hire someone, just have fewer devs using more ai right? I want to test people on whether they have experience to notice things and make decisions. Idk if they generate the busy work but that isn't what I'm grading them on
Hey preaching to the choir there, but other companies were saying "if they didn't use AI for this they won't here either". For your interviewees sake, make sure AI use is extremely specific for every step in the interview. I had places where they were upset I didn't use AI at this step, but did on this other step. It's batshit out there.
The propaganda is so strong with this one. If you talk to someone who owns just about anything, they somehow imagine you're coming after them and their stuff if you even mention anything like taxing the rich, much less getting rid of people who own more than some entire counties.
They just worked harder than the rest of us and had good ideas at the right time.
Erm, no, that still doesnât make their labour worth thousands of times more than the next person.
People I talk to know millionaire workaholics and think that but for some timing that person would be a billionaire because they donât understand how orders of magnitude work. 100k in the bank vs 1 million is a much smaller barrier than 1 million vs 1 billion never mind 100 billion
I don't think people would stop at billionaires. They'd keep going until it got uncomfortably close to their own level of wealth, but the people worse off than them wouldn't stop there, either.
Provided we are talking about taxation not guillotines, it's that really a problem? In Norway, a doctor doesn't earn much more than a train ticket seller.
"Why study medicine", you ask? "Self actualisation." Is their answer. Remember, University is free in that system, so no student debt.
Outside of my tech career, I've never met a human that knows the word "Linux". I don't mean how it works, I mean they've never heard the word. Those same people don't know what an operating system is. "Uh, is that like Apple?"
I've actually converted multiple family members to Linux, but it does take patience to work with them ensuring they can do everything they currently do
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof. More specifically, the term has been applied to those who express support for one-party MarxistâLeninist socialist republics, whether contemporary or historical. It is commonly used by anti-authoritarian leftists, anarchists, libertarian socialists, left communists, social democrats, democratic socialists, and reformists to criticise Leninism, although the term has seen increasing use by liberal and rightâwing factions as well.[5][4]
The term came into use for communists who supported the Soviet Union sending in tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, with the commentary being that tankies supported Soviet imperialism over local revolution.
So supporting Palestine over Israel doesn't make someone a tankie, but supporting Russia over Ukraine does.
By skimming the front page I don't see many tankie-traits. Loads of communism and socialism, sure, but not much tankie stuff. But I'm sure there's a lot of them in the comments with "interesting" takes on the cultural revolution and the holodomor.
In practice, liberals and anarchists call anyone who defines themselves as a communist a tankie. Liberals will frequently use it for anyone who claims to be any sort of socialist.
Maybe sometimes. I donât think this is generally true. Though Iâve also met tankies who think youâre not a real communist unless youâre a tankie. Are you one of those people?
To me youâre not a tankie unless you consistently apologize for, minimize, or dismiss oppression under so-called socialist countries. There are a decent number of communists who donât do this but theyâre not the majority from what Iâve seen.
Well give that another think because you're wrong. This idea that liberals don't use the word tankie is so off base and moronic I don't know where you guys are coming from.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted for this. I've SEEN real tankies, doing odd things like cheering for BRICS to rise up or Russia to defeat NATO in Ukraine because late stage capitalist oligarchy counts as communism if it's Russian or something, I don't know?
But the VAST majority of the time I see it used is by neoliberals as an excuse to dismiss literally anyone anywhere on the actual political left out of hand.
Some people absolutely will, or for even more than that. Fast food addiction is a serious problem for some. I've seen people spend over a hundred dollars on fast food when they could've gotten a week's worth of better food for that price instead.
everyone iknow IRL who uses the word facist is mostly just talking about things they hate or people they dislike.
Like having to get the FD to opprove occupany permit for an event is 'facist' to these folks. They tend to be anarchist idealists who think there should be no rules, except for fashion. because they are all very concerned with other people's clothing choices for some reason too.
In my experience, people often are against random murder, like serial killing, but many will go along with the idea of state-sanctioned murder or 'defensive' murder in various forms. The proportion of people who are true pacifists has always been pretty small.
This is popular. Just look at the celebrations when bin laden got killed. Or how people celebrate executions of heionous criminals. Sure, they say they don't like "murder", but they think like: "he should get the death penalty", which is practically the same thought, but worded in a more... "legal" phrasing.
I mean maybe not "majority", but there's a lot of people that are okay with death penalty. Even the liberals opposing death penalty sometimes think that a mass shooter should get executed, like that white supremacist dude that murdered black people in a church (not gonna name the shithead), biden was doing pardons when he was leaving office and that guy was one of the ones that he did not commute the death sentence of. So he basically implied that he approved of the racist murder getting executed. A president of the US implicitly approved of a killing (a good decision, btw), I mean... that's as mainstream as it can get.
Death to the Charleston Church shooter. Lolol (To mods: this is not "violence" since dude is on death row, I'm just wishing for it to be faster LOL)
TLDR: "Murder" bad, "Executions" okay, is basically the sentinment of some people.
Contrary to what I think OP's position is, I think Lemitors are distinguished from mainstream audiences in that we tolerate or prefer an environment where censorship is impossible. Defederation doesn't silence anyone, it just plugs your ears.
On a individual level. I completely agree with you.
It's when large instances with large user bases. Get very opinionated and start to defederate from other instances for differences of politics or opinions, but not bad behavior. That's where I think Lemmy swings too far into censorship
I'm not 100% certain that defederation counts as censorship.
A group recognizing that a different group is harassing and inflammatory towards them and excluding them isn't really stopping them from talking in the first place, and therefore it's not censoring them.
Each individual has the option of picking a side or creating additional accounts so that they can be on both sides if they want.
The only "censorship" here is a very minor hurdle in between the two groups.
Yeah I mean you could take it further and say someone blocking someone or a community is censorship. I mean I just don't like sports and I don't like memes at the volume that is present.
133 Comments
makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world · 153 pts · 336d
AI is untrustworthy and shouldn't be used
I have management talking about copilot usage rates and I hear people casually refer to "what ChatGPT told them" in conversation
Konstant@lemmy.world · 59 pts · 336d
The other day on Reddit someone was saying they just fact checked something with ChatGPT.
SpicyLengthiness@lemmy.ca · -14 pts · 336d
You can ask ChatGPT to provide sources you know.
Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 335d
The sources are bullshit https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfN9wnPvU0
SpicyLengthiness@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 334d
Yea it has made shit up sometimes. But you can use your brain and check the sources .. ? ChatGPT is just a more precise Google. You still have to check it yourself and use your head.
Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de · 0 pts · 334d
So you didn't watch the video then, got it. I guess you can ask ChatGPT to summarize the transcript for you đ
SpicyLengthiness@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 333d
SpicyLengthiness@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 333d
I watched the video, and he literally says that AI can be used as a more effective Google search. So clearly you didn't watch the video, or pay attention at all. The video is also just a giant ad for their merch.
jet@hackertalks.com · 6 pts · 336d
I've found it very useful as a tool to gather references from talks that don't cite claims...
It's like a super search for context. I would never use a LLM to provide logic or reason, and sadly I think many people do.
elevenbones@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 334d
Yeah. If ur dummy.
Zak@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 336d
I have a more nuanced take. AI is simultaneously untrustworthy and useful. For many queries, DuckDuckGo and Google are performing considerably worse than they used to, while Perplexity usually yields good results. Perplexity also handles complex queries traditional search engines just can't.
About a third of the time, Perplexity's text summary of what it found is inaccurate; it may even say the opposite of what a source does. Reading the sources and evaluating their reliability is no less important than with traditional search, but much of the time I think I wouldn't have found the same sources that way.
Of course there are other issues with AI, such as power usage and Perplexity in particular being known for aggressive web scraping.
Nuance and depth isn't as popular as I'd like on or off Lemmy.
makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 336d
Ah, but you see, I never claimed AI isn't useful. In fact, you can check my comment history. I've agreed AI is a very useful tool, I still think it shouldn't be used for ethical, social, and personal reasons
A problem with nuance is that people want to discuss the specifics and nuances of what they care about but for the most part won't do that on subjects for other people. So you need to tailor your responses to your audience. FWIW on Lemmy I see a lot more instances of people with specificly opposed takes where both sides have similar vote counts. So while it's not perfect it's better than most
village604@adultswim.fan · 2 pts · 336d
You can theoretically have an ethical LLM. You can train one from the ground up on non-copyrighted materials using renewable energy.
But I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that it's not uncommon for technology to start off super inefficient. A computer used to take up an entire floor of an office building, and a hard drive with a few KB of storage used to be the size of a fridge.
Now you can have a system orders of magnitude more powerful that's the size of a postage stamp and consumes less than 1W of power.
makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 336d
Lots of things theoretically exist: a reasonable terms and conditions, a functioning DMV, a unified charging standard, etc. I'm going to focus my energy on things that are real and not hope someone decides to be morally upstanding. If you're arguing that the bullshit machine that spreads lies that actively harm people could become so ubiquitous that it fits in any electronic device if we just keep giving it money, then I'd say you're making my argument for me
village604@adultswim.fan · 9 pts · 336d
I've found it to be extremely useful for stuff like one-off powershell commands that I'll use like 3x in my career.
Just today I was trying to find the command line switches for disk2vhd, and none of the top results, even the official page for the app, had them.
But Google's AI had them and provided sources I could use to verify the information.
But people didn't do that last part before AI, so I can see why it's an issue.
YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 336d
Absolutely. I recently needed to satisfy auditors with a report on our network security. Our main guy was on leave, but I quickly got the evidence I needed with a few powershell commands that I would have previously spent way more time googling.
It's also decent at reports and short, impersonal emails to suppliers etc. It frees up a lot of my time to do actual work, and for that I think it's decent.
Like basically everything in life, the truth is between the extremes. For me it's useful, but doesn't replace me and my team. I'm neither an AI evangelist or detractor. It's just another tool.
phdepressed@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 336d
I think ddg and Google are performing worse because of AI. Pushing their AI services and the tsunami of AI slop make a search harder than SEO did and deprioritizes fixing it.
village604@adultswim.fan · 2 pts · 336d
Ddg is performing worse because Microsoft raised the price on Bing API calls.
yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 336d
It's also a way to inflate the number of ads a user has to wade through before they find what they're looking for. Classic monopolist bullshit.
bizarroland@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 336d
I think current state-of-the-art AI is useful for when you are not having a novel thought.
I believe that AI, at least in the form of LLMs, is currently incapable of novelty in the sense of creating a new concept or a new thought with reason and purpose behind it.
For instance, if I was going to write a book, I might consult with LLMs about how to fill in the slow gaps or the dead spaces in my storyline and to fully come up with a completely fleshed out story that I would then write without its assistance.
My assumption is that anything that it fills in is going to be cobbled together from literally hundreds of thousands of other similar stories, and therefore it will not be new or unique in any way.
If I was really trying to push the envelope, I would then assume that the right thing to do would be that whatever it says is ordinary and common, and if I want to be extraordinary and uncommon, then I need to use that as a launch point for my own gap-filling content.
Therefore, I could use an LLM to write a good story with a new concept, a new premise, a new storyline that is relatively unique and original by using the LLM to clearly identify those things that are not.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 336d
I have people telling me how to do my work because "That's what ChatGPT suggested, and they're always accurate".
đ€·
GalacticTaterTot@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 336d
I think it is useful with a constrained dataset. Like using it to summarize things about a dataset, or dumping documents into it and asked getting info about it (like Gemini in Google Drive).
It is not useful for general question using the whole-ass internet as a dataset.
Also I wish it was called something other than AI...it's just a word guesser FFS.
SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev · 5 pts · 335d
We should are least refer to inference LLMs as LLMs. The fact that if you asked it something like who is the current CS2 top team, it would give you the top team at the time it was trained is enough proof that the models effectively know nothing.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 335d
the only useful thing my company and collegues have fold for it is taking meeting notes. it just logs everything and summarizies stuff, and it's like 90% accurate, but it does make plenty of errors.
however, if i give a presentation with screen sharing, it can't do shit to summarize that.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 336d
Actual AGI would be trustworthy. The current "AI" is just a word salad blender program.
makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 336d
Would it? I run a science fiction book club and there're a lot of arguments that if something achieved human level intelligence that it would immediately try to kill us, not become our perfect servants
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 336d
I believe in the Grand Plan, and I have faith in The Director. Begone, faction scum.
wirelesswire@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 336d
That was a good show.
riot@fedia.io · 2 pts · 333d
I'd completely forgotten about this show. But your comment made me start a rewatch 3 days ago, and man, it's better than I remembered. Really has me hooked, and I just started season 2 now. Thanks!
uniquethrowagay@feddit.org · 1 pts · 335d
"It was a morality core they installed after I flooded the Enrichment Center with a deadly neurotoxin to make me stop flooding the Enrichment Center with a deadly neurotoxin."
Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 336d
It could be argued that people are AGI. Are they always trustworthy?
thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 334d
i actively zone out when anyone higher up than me talks about copilot or chat gpt. i also dressed down a colleague for using chat gpt for a stupid simple task.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 2 pts · 336d
how to say with this. I see pretty much an equal split between ai is best thing ever, ai will doom us all, and like ai has some uses and may get more but we need to make sure any use is worth the energy usage.
Electricd@lemmybefree.net · 1 pts · 335d
Depends on the subject
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 1 pts · 336d
As a software developer I fully agree. People bash on it constantly here but the fact is is that it's required for our jobs now. I just made it through a job hunt and every tech screen I did they not only insisted on me using AI, but they figured how much I was using too.
The fact is is that like it or not it does speed us up, and it is a tool in our toolbelt. You don't have to trust it 100% or blindly accept what it does, but you do need to be able to use it. Refusing to use it is like refusing to use the designer for WinForms 20 years ago, or refusing to use an IDE at work. You're going to be at a massive disadvantage to your competing jobseekers who are more than happy to use AI.
AstralPath@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 336d
This is not a fact at all.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 4 pts · 336d
Fine it speeds me up.
bigfondue@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 336d
shalafi@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 336d
That's dumbshits using it to do their job for them and trusting the output blindly. If you're using LLMs to get over the occasional hump they're awesome time savers.
I'm guessing you don't write code?
acchariya@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 335d
I review take home assignments and mostly we receive AI submissions. It's easy to tell when they aren't AI though because we get thoughtful comments about why one choice was made over another, and comments on the higher level view that only come from product context and experience. I don't think one single fully ai-created submission has made it passed the code review part.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 2 pts · 334d
See it's hard as an interviewer because for the first time ever I lost points at one place because I didn't use AI at all, and they almost didn't say yes to me. Their feedback quite literally was that it functioned well, but I could have got it done faster with AI.
acchariya@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 334d
Seems pointless to test you on anything that could be done by ai, otherwise why even hire someone, just have fewer devs using more ai right? I want to test people on whether they have experience to notice things and make decisions. Idk if they generate the busy work but that isn't what I'm grading them on
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 1 pts · 334d
Hey preaching to the choir there, but other companies were saying "if they didn't use AI for this they won't here either". For your interviewees sake, make sure AI use is extremely specific for every step in the interview. I had places where they were upset I didn't use AI at this step, but did on this other step. It's batshit out there.
twinklefruit@lemmings.world · 0 pts · 336d
iamericandre@lemmy.world · 124 pts · 336d
Iâve met a lot of people who donât agree with âbillionaires shouldnât existâ
burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de · 59 pts · 336d
The propaganda is so strong with this one. If you talk to someone who owns just about anything, they somehow imagine you're coming after them and their stuff if you even mention anything like taxing the rich, much less getting rid of people who own more than some entire counties.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 18 pts · 336d
Erm, no, that still doesnât make their labour worth thousands of times more than the next person.
People I talk to know millionaire workaholics and think that but for some timing that person would be a billionaire because they donât understand how orders of magnitude work. 100k in the bank vs 1 million is a much smaller barrier than 1 million vs 1 billion never mind 100 billion
shalafi@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 336d
The whole 1% slogan was fucking stupid. We all know decent people in the 1%. It's the .001% that are the problem.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 335d
most of the 1% I have known are not decent at all. they are just good at playing the victim and passing the buck to someone else wealthier than them.
AmidFuror@fedia.io · -5 pts · 336d
I don't think people would stop at billionaires. They'd keep going until it got uncomfortably close to their own level of wealth, but the people worse off than them wouldn't stop there, either.
Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 336d
Provided we are talking about taxation not guillotines, it's that really a problem? In Norway, a doctor doesn't earn much more than a train ticket seller.
"Why study medicine", you ask? "Self actualisation." Is their answer. Remember, University is free in that system, so no student debt.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 336d
Money perverts incentives.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 335d
in USA we have some doctors earning like 20x what other doctors earn. and they both paid the same for med school.
hence why our primary care system is collapsing and our specialized treatment system is thriving.
IcedRaktajino@startrek.website · 9 pts · 336d
[Giancarlo Esposito Meme]
I think billionaires shouldn't exist because we should have appropriate levels of taxation and a "maximum wage" law.
Lemmy thinks billionaires shouldn't exist and are setting up guillotines.
We are not the same.
njm1314@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 336d
You are the same it's just that yours only comes after theirs. You can't get to yours until you do theirs first.
Nemo@slrpnk.net · 81 pts · 336d
Linux
Communism
independent social media
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 53 pts · 336d
"You should totally install Linux, Bro/Sis"
JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 336d
Linux girlies are the goats
Electricd@lemmybefree.net · 0 pts · 335d
Itâs a myth, no cisgender women, only transgender women and femboys, but yea theyâre the goats
Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org · 9 pts · 336d
shalafi@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 336d
Outside of my tech career, I've never met a human that knows the word "Linux". I don't mean how it works, I mean they've never heard the word. Those same people don't know what an operating system is. "Uh, is that like Apple?"
slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org · 1 pts · 335d
I think that's what linux fanatics don't understand. Their answer to everything is: just install linux, it's perfect.
Something didn't work, what now?
"Oh you have a nvidia graphics card? Hahaha, okay now you go to this website and copy 32 lines of code.
That's all nice and all, do i have to explain that to my sister who is always proud when she doubleclicks fast enough?
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org · 8 pts · 335d
And if you install it often enough you might change from bro to sis /s
kbal@fedia.io · 3 pts · 336d
If you're in a place where that opinion is unpopular you may not be in the real world.
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 336d
I'm pretty sure my friends are real, and none of them are installing Linux any time soon.
kbal@fedia.io · 2 pts · 336d
It's just that around my part of the world, not actually doing it is way more common than not thinking you probably should be doing it.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 2 pts · 336d
I've actually converted multiple family members to Linux, but it does take patience to work with them ensuring they can do everything they currently do
guynamedzero@piefed.zeromedia.vip · 2 pts · 336d
Iâve got my first
victimwindows refugee almost ready to switch! Just waiting for a good day when she has a lot of mental energyKennystillalive@feddit.org · 34 pts · 336d
"Eat the rich." Appearently people don't think they are tasty outside of Lemmy.
actionjbone@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 336d
It's all about how you prepare the meat.
shalafi@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 336d
I'm praying this new wave of politicians win with their message that the wealthy are the root of our problems. Not the merely rich, the wealthy.
Watched this guy twice, got weepy both times. I want to cry and fucking scream. This is the winning message!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53bZ_95nDjk
prex@aussie.zone · 31 pts · 336d
That Lemmy is a worthwhile use of our time?
Electricd@lemmybefree.net · 1 pts · 335d
Thatâs the best one right there
kepix@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 336d
linux desktop and russian propaganda
DrBob@lemmy.ca · 23 pts · 336d
I still have no idea what a Tankie is. As far as I can tell it only exists here on Lemmy and I might be one.
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 27 pts · 336d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof. More specifically, the term has been applied to those who express support for one-party MarxistâLeninist socialist republics, whether contemporary or historical. It is commonly used by anti-authoritarian leftists, anarchists, libertarian socialists, left communists, social democrats, democratic socialists, and reformists to criticise Leninism, although the term has seen increasing use by liberal and rightâwing factions as well.[5][4]
Blisterexe@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 336d
As an example, I recently had someone unironically claim that china has more free speech than france, from a server hosted in france đ€Š
germanichwurst@feddit.org · -2 pts · 335d
France throws grenade at protesters.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 6 pts · 335d
The term came into use for communists who supported the Soviet Union sending in tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, with the commentary being that tankies supported Soviet imperialism over local revolution.
So supporting Palestine over Israel doesn't make someone a tankie, but supporting Russia over Ukraine does.
DrBob@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 335d
Not a Tankie! đ„ł
chunes@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 336d
If you want to see some non-lemmy tankies, check out https://raddle.me/.
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 336d
By skimming the front page I don't see many tankie-traits. Loads of communism and socialism, sure, but not much tankie stuff. But I'm sure there's a lot of them in the comments with "interesting" takes on the cultural revolution and the holodomor.
chunes@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 336d
You're right. It seems to be mostly anarchists and such. There might have been more tankies back in the day, or maybe I just misremembered.
grte@lemmy.ca · -6 pts · 336d
In practice, liberals and anarchists call anyone who defines themselves as a communist a tankie. Liberals will frequently use it for anyone who claims to be any sort of socialist.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 336d
Maybe sometimes. I donât think this is generally true. Though Iâve also met tankies who think youâre not a real communist unless youâre a tankie. Are you one of those people?
To me youâre not a tankie unless you consistently apologize for, minimize, or dismiss oppression under so-called socialist countries. There are a decent number of communists who donât do this but theyâre not the majority from what Iâve seen.
grte@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 336d
I've seen liberals call social democrats tankies. It's been turned into a meaningless term.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 336d
A word sometimes being misused doesnât make it meaningless. Personally, I donât see this all that often.
But yeah I mean incorrect usage should be criticized when it appears, certainly.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 336d
liberals don't use "tankie", they would just use the term "communist"
grte@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 336d
They absolutely use tankie.
Blisterexe@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 336d
I think you may be misinterpreting soc-dems or anarchists or whoever else on the left as liberals
grte@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 336d
Well give that another think because you're wrong. This idea that liberals don't use the word tankie is so off base and moronic I don't know where you guys are coming from.
Coyote_sly@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 336d
I don't know why you're getting downvoted for this. I've SEEN real tankies, doing odd things like cheering for BRICS to rise up or Russia to defeat NATO in Ukraine because late stage capitalist oligarchy counts as communism if it's Russian or something, I don't know?
But the VAST majority of the time I see it used is by neoliberals as an excuse to dismiss literally anyone anywhere on the actual political left out of hand.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 336d
neoliberals would not call you a "tankie", since "communist" is already a deogratory/perjorative term for them.
greenbit@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 336d
It's just a variety of fascist, pretending to belong with ideologies and principles that are not compatible
germanichwurst@feddit.org · 2 pts · 335d
The main "anti tankies" community here is modded by raging zionists
daggermoon@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 334d
The person working the drive through at McDonald's should be paid a livable wage.
whoisearth@lemmy.ca · -9 pts · 334d
Because in the real world we all know no one is paying 20$ for a happy meal.
Snowpix@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 334d
Some people absolutely will, or for even more than that. Fast food addiction is a serious problem for some. I've seen people spend over a hundred dollars on fast food when they could've gotten a week's worth of better food for that price instead.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 334d
Good thing it doesn't need to be $20, the corporate middleman leeches just need cut out of the equation.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 334d
Kill your lawn! Be a vegan. The devil is a landlord!
dontsayaword@piefed.social · 14 pts · 336d
Fascism is bad
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 336d
Lol fascism is not a popular opinion.
Reminder that the actual original nazis never had a majority in any democratic elections, its the loud minority that took control by force.
dontsayaword@piefed.social · 8 pts · 336d
Fascism isn't a popular opinion
But being against it is unpopular
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 335d
everyone iknow IRL who uses the word facist is mostly just talking about things they hate or people they dislike.
Like having to get the FD to opprove occupany permit for an event is 'facist' to these folks. They tend to be anarchist idealists who think there should be no rules, except for fashion. because they are all very concerned with other people's clothing choices for some reason too.
dontsayaword@piefed.social · 1 pts · 335d
Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org · 13 pts · 336d
Blisterexe@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 336d
Saying Trump sucks is only a controversial opinion in america*
*and some other very right-wing countries I suppose
thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 334d
Linux is great actually, and Lemmy is cool.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 336d
Murder is okay sometimes.
Sunsofold@lemmings.world · 9 pts · 336d
That seems pretty popular out in the world as well, just usually with slightly different selections of 'sometimes.'
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 336d
The people I associate with in real life and get exposed to via media are all very much of the opinion that murder is bad.
Sunsofold@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 335d
In my experience, people often are against random murder, like serial killing, but many will go along with the idea of state-sanctioned murder or 'defensive' murder in various forms. The proportion of people who are true pacifists has always been pretty small.
twinklefruit@lemmings.world · 0 pts · 336d
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 335d
I think maybe I'm just older than you are. And less American. Your culture is kind of fucked.
twinklefruit@lemmings.world · -3 pts · 335d
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 336d
This is popular. Just look at the celebrations when bin laden got killed. Or how people celebrate executions of heionous criminals. Sure, they say they don't like "murder", but they think like: "he should get the death penalty", which is practically the same thought, but worded in a more... "legal" phrasing.
I mean maybe not "majority", but there's a lot of people that are okay with death penalty. Even the liberals opposing death penalty sometimes think that a mass shooter should get executed, like that white supremacist dude that murdered black people in a church (not gonna name the shithead), biden was doing pardons when he was leaving office and that guy was one of the ones that he did not commute the death sentence of. So he basically implied that he approved of the racist murder getting executed. A president of the US implicitly approved of a killing (a good decision, btw), I mean... that's as mainstream as it can get.
Death to the Charleston Church shooter. Lolol (To mods: this is not "violence" since dude is on death row, I'm just wishing for it to be faster LOL)
TLDR: "Murder" bad, "Executions" okay, is basically the sentinment of some people.
Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org · 0 pts · 335d
jet@hackertalks.com · 5 pts · 336d
Political assassination
Veganism
Censorship
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 336d
How is censorship a popular opinion on lemmy?? What does lemmy censor??
Other two i agree with.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 336d
Contrary to what I think OP's position is, I think Lemitors are distinguished from mainstream audiences in that we tolerate or prefer an environment where censorship is impossible. Defederation doesn't silence anyone, it just plugs your ears.
jet@hackertalks.com · 2 pts · 336d
On a individual level. I completely agree with you.
It's when large instances with large user bases. Get very opinionated and start to defederate from other instances for differences of politics or opinions, but not bad behavior. That's where I think Lemmy swings too far into censorship
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 335d
Curation is not censorship. Telling you that I will no longer contribute my personal resources to platforming your message is not censorship.
jet@hackertalks.com · 3 pts · 336d
I've experienced many lemmies calling for the censorship of others, calls for defederation, etc... maybe its just me
bizarroland@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 336d
I'm not 100% certain that defederation counts as censorship.
A group recognizing that a different group is harassing and inflammatory towards them and excluding them isn't really stopping them from talking in the first place, and therefore it's not censoring them.
Each individual has the option of picking a side or creating additional accounts so that they can be on both sides if they want.
The only "censorship" here is a very minor hurdle in between the two groups.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 6 pts · 336d
Yeah I mean you could take it further and say someone blocking someone or a community is censorship. I mean I just don't like sports and I don't like memes at the volume that is present.
Texas_Hangover@lemmy.radio · 3 pts · 336d
Post an opinion that goes against the current buzzing of the hive and see what happens.
AmidFuror@fedia.io · 4 pts · 336d
WSWS.org is a reliable news site.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 335d
That it's okay to kill people who disagree with you
Cantaloupe877@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 335d
That seems to be quite big on Reddit too.
LittleBorat3@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 335d
No you get banned!
danciestlobster@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 334d
It is fairly statistically demonstrable that this is becoming a trend everywhere and far from unique to lemmy
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 334d
It's scary.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 335d
Being "Federated" is more than simple connectivity to other sites.
Nomad@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 333d
The whole fuck cars movement and the walkable neighborhoods movement
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 335d
going on about gaza and palestine. irl nobody cares or knows what that is.
chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 335d
Hmm, it's well enough known in my circles, and I'm the only Lemmy user of the bunch.
normalexit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 334d
People care. The world cares. Sounds like you and your social circle doesn't care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_war_protests_in_the_United_States
Mrkawfee@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 336d
Russia want to invade Europe
Edit: stay classy, Lemmy.
CXORA@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 335d