Anubis does its thing, shows me cute art, then leaves without elaborating. It's a mostly non-intrusive, individual/community effort to protect people against big tech and abusive scrapers. I usually see it in open source community websites that were getting hammered by LLM scrapers.
Cloudflare's is a corporate solution from the company that man-in-the-middles half the internet and makes me click shit every fucking time. I see it whenever I make the mistake of following a stackoverflow link.
You're goddamn right my reaction is accordingly different.
I think most popular online social spaces—here included—are unconducive to the kind of long-term, active effort conversations between individuals that might change someone's mind. Instead, we gather as many as we can and just start shouting.
Shout it loudly into every medium and hope your fiefdom's propaganda, however meager, pulls in some people over time. It's all about that noise, because noise means engagement, and engagement is the de facto cost-effective tool in social media. Honest conversations are high-cost, dubious reward. They're tiring. Jading. Hardly worth it. So, broadcasting ideas it is.
It's fundamentally the same method the ruling class has used, and continues effectively using, to influence the world in any scale that actually matters, except they reach hundreds of millions every day while we dozen thousand few shout at each other in a dark alley.
Regarding online behavior, you might consider that Lemmy has largely failed to fix it. I posit that it barely ever tried, but also that it's an extremely difficult problem because the root cause is us.
It's not just that. If it was, I'd have been convinced by the new-era freedom fighters using fucking ai horde, or whatever sloppers call their latest open-source [citation needed] model instance.
The biggest issue is the shameless, continuous abuse of creative workers by sucking up all their works without consent.
GenAI advocates would rather get rid of IP altogether, though. They claim they're all running ethical models already and it's perfect, but they also want artists' right to opt-out to not exist. Nevermind compensation, or the need for opt-in, we can't even agree on the importance of consent.
There's someone close to me whose near entire existence is basically pain. They still draw.
They hate the idea that their works got sucked by billionaires into giant plagiarism machines that are enriching them further. Pro AI people and tech bros think they should just suck it up and start using fucking AI horde or something, despite the fact that this trend makes them sick and the proposed solutions don't tackle real issues, but spread or ignore them.
One of my main gripes with GenAI is the tech industry's usual disregard for consent. GenAI users saying we should get rid of it altogether doesn't endear their ideal future to me. Saying the same thing as Sam Altman, but totally in a leftist way, just grosses me out.
Turning it against itself my ass. This is promoting it. Legitimizing it. Normalizing its presence everywhere. Doing exactly what they want.
They're on a niche forum sharing convoluted AI slop, harming that which they claim to stand for. These aren't freedom fighters subverting the system, they're clowns.
I've heard that many men do this because they've realized, in some capacity, that outright admitting they're right-wing limits their opportunities. In my circles, I've noticed this "I'm actually a centrist/apolitical" trend is also found among popular developers and tech influencers.
Saying you're anti-woke gets you shunned and surrounded by horrible people, but saying you're just apolitical gets you the blessing and protection of self-proclaimed centrists. When you, for example, marginalize LGBT folks and get called out, countless will gather to complain about people "dragging politics into tech." Bryan Lunduke will come out of his cave and write a piece about how the trans fetish is trying to kill open source.
Thank you for acknowledging that. And you may be right about blocking.
I just think it's difficult for folks, me included, to merely hide what they consider to be an issue. They're not comparable, but if I saw a self-proclaimed leftist community sharing anti-union propaganda, I'd rather discuss it. I'm not claiming that's the healthiest mindset or the correct one, but I don't think it's entirely without reason.
These situations, wherein a group broadcasts an idea to everybody, then silences dissent because it's "their turf, their rules," never seemed fair. Shields like "they're trolling", "neoliberals", "bots" and "brigading" intensify the issue—some mod comments read like a mirror of r/conservative. Why does the blame lie solely with one side, when the subject is controversial and sharing it with everyone was also a deliberate choice?
There was talk of an option, for communities, to self-exclude from "all" feeds. Wonder if such features could be a better solution, here. I'll refrain from talking AI and ethics in db0 in the future, but I feel like they should do better, themselves.
Because I make no secret of my opinions and don't filter what I interact with?
If I was part of a secret, AI-hating cabal, what the hell would I be doing here on a thread with like 50 interactions? This has got to be the least advantageous, least productive, most contrived way to further my goals: in the midst of "enemy turf," with no support, getting downvoted and looking like a loser trying to explain what brigading isn't.
There's no pretty way to say this, but you're acting like a conspiracy theorist.
I'm not denying the nature of brigades, I'm saying a lot of the internet hates the genAI trend, is extremely open about it, and that post hit All. This is the simplest explanation, which you're saying isn't the case despite having no actual evidence pointing otherwise. But merely trying to prove the obvious would feed into an apparent persecution complex.
If I stay quiet, you're right, but if I talk you're righter. Have a good day, I guess.
I don't think we'll agree here, but it has to be said:
There is no brigade. You need to stop trying to redefine that term. There is no coordination, no plan, no private organizing. What you see is an entirely natural, decentralized reaction to an obnoxious and harmful trend.
You're broadcasting, shouting at a megaphone, then blaming people who didn't preemptively put earplugs in. You're blaming people who have every right to use or not whatever platform features they wish and framing their disjointed actions as something else.
If you don't like these reactions, you're also free to stop seeing them. So maybe suck it up, or block some people? This argument sucks.
I think we should save the Hitler comparisons for individuals that actually deserve it. AI bros and genAI promoters are frequently assholes, but not unapologetically fascist genocidal ones.
Another isolated case for the endlessly growing list of positive impacts of the GenAI with no accountability trend. A big shout-out to people promoting and fueling it, excited to see into what pit you lead us next.
This experiment is also nearly worthless because, as proved by the researchers, there's no guarantee the accounts you interact with on Reddit are actual humans. Upvotes are even easier for machines to use, and can be bought for cheap.
Tell activitypub to stop putting db0 AI slop on my instance's All front-page, then. It's not brigading. If you don't want interaction with the outside world, stop federating with it.
About as much as I trust the yanks.
yea this attitude right here is why ai bros are so beloved
Anubis does its thing, shows me cute art, then leaves without elaborating. It's a mostly non-intrusive, individual/community effort to protect people against big tech and abusive scrapers. I usually see it in open source community websites that were getting hammered by LLM scrapers.
Cloudflare's is a corporate solution from the company that man-in-the-middles half the internet and makes me click shit every fucking time. I see it whenever I make the mistake of following a stackoverflow link.
You're goddamn right my reaction is accordingly different.
I think most popular online social spaces—here included—are unconducive to the kind of long-term, active effort conversations between individuals that might change someone's mind. Instead, we gather as many as we can and just start shouting.
Shout it loudly into every medium and hope your fiefdom's propaganda, however meager, pulls in some people over time. It's all about that noise, because noise means engagement, and engagement is the de facto cost-effective tool in social media. Honest conversations are high-cost, dubious reward. They're tiring. Jading. Hardly worth it. So, broadcasting ideas it is.
It's fundamentally the same method the ruling class has used, and continues effectively using, to influence the world in any scale that actually matters, except they reach hundreds of millions every day while we dozen thousand few shout at each other in a dark alley.
Regarding online behavior, you might consider that Lemmy has largely failed to fix it. I posit that it barely ever tried, but also that it's an extremely difficult problem because the root cause is us.
Yeah, the more people say something, the less true it becomes. Good facts die inside an individual mind without ever being shared.
It's not just that. If it was, I'd have been convinced by the new-era freedom fighters using fucking ai horde, or whatever sloppers call their latest open-source [citation needed] model instance.
The biggest issue is the shameless, continuous abuse of creative workers by sucking up all their works without consent.
What is your point? Lemmy is full of Trump criticism. It's the norm. One thread shitting on Hillary won't change that.
GenAI advocates would rather get rid of IP altogether, though. They claim they're all running ethical models already and it's perfect, but they also want artists' right to opt-out to not exist. Nevermind compensation, or the need for opt-in, we can't even agree on the importance of consent.
I'm sure those free services run on pure hopes and dreams and will do so forever.
There's someone close to me whose near entire existence is basically pain. They still draw.
They hate the idea that their works got sucked by billionaires into giant plagiarism machines that are enriching them further. Pro AI people and tech bros think they should just suck it up and start using fucking AI horde or something, despite the fact that this trend makes them sick and the proposed solutions don't tackle real issues, but spread or ignore them.
One of my main gripes with GenAI is the tech industry's usual disregard for consent. GenAI users saying we should get rid of it altogether doesn't endear their ideal future to me. Saying the same thing as Sam Altman, but totally in a leftist way, just grosses me out.
Turning it against itself my ass. This is promoting it. Legitimizing it. Normalizing its presence everywhere. Doing exactly what they want.
They're on a niche forum sharing convoluted AI slop, harming that which they claim to stand for. These aren't freedom fighters subverting the system, they're clowns.
I've heard that many men do this because they've realized, in some capacity, that outright admitting they're right-wing limits their opportunities. In my circles, I've noticed this "I'm actually a centrist/apolitical" trend is also found among popular developers and tech influencers.
Saying you're anti-woke gets you shunned and surrounded by horrible people, but saying you're just apolitical gets you the blessing and protection of self-proclaimed centrists. When you, for example, marginalize LGBT folks and get called out, countless will gather to complain about people "dragging politics into tech." Bryan Lunduke will come out of his cave and write a piece about how the trans fetish is trying to kill open source.
Thank you for acknowledging that. And you may be right about blocking.
I just think it's difficult for folks, me included, to merely hide what they consider to be an issue. They're not comparable, but if I saw a self-proclaimed leftist community sharing anti-union propaganda, I'd rather discuss it. I'm not claiming that's the healthiest mindset or the correct one, but I don't think it's entirely without reason.
These situations, wherein a group broadcasts an idea to everybody, then silences dissent because it's "their turf, their rules," never seemed fair. Shields like "they're trolling", "neoliberals", "bots" and "brigading" intensify the issue—some mod comments read like a mirror of r/conservative. Why does the blame lie solely with one side, when the subject is controversial and sharing it with everyone was also a deliberate choice?
There was talk of an option, for communities, to self-exclude from "all" feeds. Wonder if such features could be a better solution, here. I'll refrain from talking AI and ethics in db0 in the future, but I feel like they should do better, themselves.
I'm not blaming AP, just refuting the absurd brigade claim.
Because I make no secret of my opinions and don't filter what I interact with?
If I was part of a secret, AI-hating cabal, what the hell would I be doing here on a thread with like 50 interactions? This has got to be the least advantageous, least productive, most contrived way to further my goals: in the midst of "enemy turf," with no support, getting downvoted and looking like a loser trying to explain what brigading isn't.
There's no pretty way to say this, but you're acting like a conspiracy theorist.
I'm not denying the nature of brigades, I'm saying a lot of the internet hates the genAI trend, is extremely open about it, and that post hit All. This is the simplest explanation, which you're saying isn't the case despite having no actual evidence pointing otherwise. But merely trying to prove the obvious would feed into an apparent persecution complex.
If I stay quiet, you're right, but if I talk you're righter. Have a good day, I guess.
I don't think we'll agree here, but it has to be said:
There is no brigade. You need to stop trying to redefine that term. There is no coordination, no plan, no private organizing. What you see is an entirely natural, decentralized reaction to an obnoxious and harmful trend.
You're broadcasting, shouting at a megaphone, then blaming people who didn't preemptively put earplugs in. You're blaming people who have every right to use or not whatever platform features they wish and framing their disjointed actions as something else.
If you don't like these reactions, you're also free to stop seeing them. So maybe suck it up, or block some people? This argument sucks.
That's too far, though I understand the feeling.
I think we should save the Hitler comparisons for individuals that actually deserve it. AI bros and genAI promoters are frequently assholes, but not unapologetically fascist genocidal ones.
Another isolated case for the endlessly growing list of positive impacts of the GenAI with no accountability trend. A big shout-out to people promoting and fueling it, excited to see into what pit you lead us next.
This experiment is also nearly worthless because, as proved by the researchers, there's no guarantee the accounts you interact with on Reddit are actual humans. Upvotes are even easier for machines to use, and can be bought for cheap.
Is criticizing the AI trend and its adopters in any manner always against db0/comm rules?
I posted two comments, one criticism and one a question to another commenter. None palpatine reaction images. Both were deleted.
Tell activitypub to stop putting db0 AI slop on my instance's All front-page, then. It's not brigading. If you don't want interaction with the outside world, stop federating with it.