Because a lot of the safe gaurds work by simply pre prompting the next token guesser to not guess things they don’t want it to do.

Its in plain english using the “logic” of conversations, so the same vulnerabilities largely apply to those methods.

Don’t forget the single digit millions that pretended that the mentally incompetent rapist fascist was the same as a generic corporatist neoliberal and encouraged people to stay home.

I gotta be real with you. This comment very much sounds like the delusional super stonk member who think eventually the big system they believe is colluding to fuck them trips up on a technicality and makes them uber rich.

Basically, you’re just imagining a reality that wont exist for so many reasons.

The biggest reason is that the AI GPUs do not use DIMMs largely, and even server dimms (ecc rdimms) won’t fit in your PC.

More than that, by the time anything does happen, technology will have moved on.

If you’re about to say “but I don’t have to”, Id ask you why you arent on a 10 year old computer right now.

The fact people are blaming the tech rather than the tech bros is a big part of why this keeps happening.

Its the decision of real people that make this situation suck.

Its always been a shitty meme aimed at being cruel to new users.

Somehow though people continue to spread the lie that the linux community is nice and welcoming.

Really its a community of professionals, professional elitists, or people who are otherwise so fringe that they demand their os be fringe as well.

When they lose it needs to be cause they were not left enough they need to lose

This idea that you can punish the DNC by having them lose, is a foot gun.

They are 100% happy with that and it absolutely would not cause them to shift even a centimeter left. If anything, it will shift them right.

The DNC wants to please their corporate donors, and only wants to win half the time.

You want to punish them? Replace them slowly using primaries, state and local politics.

Anything else is shooting yourself in the foot by misunderstanding the incentive structures.

I’m sorry but it is naive to think that misinformed voters will learn the right lesson and vote blue no matter who.

I never said I thought they would. I said its the closest to possible way out.

Nothing is is remotely plausible.

It is more practical to ask for better candidates.

No it is not, because the people you are asking do not care about you.

I think many people in the lemmyverse struggle to deal with what they feel like are conflicting ideas, where they feel like they can’t acknowledge that their relationship with the DNC is adversarial, while also acknowledging that the Democrats are the only party of the 2 parties in a system that only supports 2 major parties that can be leveraged to pull the country towards their objectives.

Better candidates have to be voted in over time, and just as I said, you have to slowly shift the party through primaries and local and state politics.

This requires a multifaceted approach. The DNC will not magically wake up tomorrow and hear your pleas. They will not suddenly support your sweetheart candidate.

They understand and largely like the flipping back and forth so that they can please their donors by allowing the country to continue drifting right, while appeasing to voters by offering to undo some of the harm caused by the republicans during the flip flopping.

Asking them won’t work, because it fundamentally misunderstands their incentives and goals as an organization steering the Democratic party.

I think significant progress could be seen if they could win 4 times in a row with at least one senate super majority and house simple majority stretch near the end.

This is partially why the world is so fucked. People who care, often utterly refuse to be pragmatic, and expect change to always be sweeping, and happen in an instant.

This is what is responsible for the US getting to where it is. They repeatedly allow democrats to lose, and therefore pull the same cycle of losing, having everyone see how much worse republicans are, and then having the democrats walk back some of the damage the republicans did.

People are so naive and angsty, they feel they need to punish the democrats for not doing what they’d like, and only end up punishing themselves, over and over and over again.

The obvious, only pragmatic way to look at this, is that you need them to keep winning so that they cannot backslide, and then you need to use primaries and state and local politics to actually shift them leftward.

Literally nothing else is practical or will work, but people on this site would rather rant about issues than fix them.

The sentiment that the AI bares any noteworthy responsibility for this is purely anti AI rage, that should be aimed at legitimate problems.

Imagine suing a notebook company for their paper being the paper of choice for selfharming teens?

Imagine suing home depot for selling rope and a stool to someone who has had enough?

Imagine suing nickleback for making music of the quality that encouraged this?

Im saying, we’re all aware this is some bits on a server right? Like this is clearly not a person, doesn’t have the impact of a person, and unless they’ve specifically tuned it to manipulate the impressionable into killing people, these sentiments just don’t make sense.

He never stopped doing bad things, he just started rehabing his image

Why would he give a shit what people think about him? Others rich people don’t because when you’ve got enough money you can insulate yourself entirely from what the world thinks.

This is the most ridiculous line of reasoning.

Firstly, many rich people care. Many care about their “legacy”. They want their names on big donations, and on school campuses.

Secondly, many rich people spend inordinate amounts on PR advisement firms, demonstrating that there are significant dollar values put into caring about this. We’re talking about PR for the person, not even for a business.

Nor do the people judging him so harshly.

They judge from what is known. You judge from giving him the benefit of the doubt between the cracks.

The fuck? Why would he donate money and save countless lives just to benefit from it via some claimed business link?

This is such a bizarre misrepresentation of what my comment is clearly saying.

I am clearly pointing out that he is still doing evil and you are being blinded by some fancy curated numbers.

I don’t even know how you got to that conclusion.

I doubt you actually believe this, at least if we are understanding the words as written.

Just based on the website we are talking on, I am going to assume we have a few shared moral similarities, at least at a glance.

We think murder, rape, discrimination based on inalienable traits, domestic abuse, religious fanaticism, theft outside of exceptions are wrong.

If we start going down even that quickly thought up list, and just look at surveys from groups throughout the world, we start chunking massive percentages of people off of our “good” list very quickly.

These are nowhere near exact numbers because the point isn’t about any specific one of these, but about disqualifying behaviours and points of view.

Most people don’t murder, but many support it. Let’s just say we are only thinking about people who will murder at some point in their lives, and guesstimate that at 1% off the list.

99% good

Most people don’t rape… or do they? How many third world or religiously fanatic nations treat rape as standard, within marriages, on people of lower status, etc.

Even in western nations, the numbers of people who are sexually assaulted by people they know are more like 1 in [single digit number], and then further surveys always reveal that there is probably significant under-reporting going on, with many people unable to believe they were raped, told to be silent, and who ultimately rationalize away the event.

Now you go to countries with religious fanaticism, and many if not most condone rape in some fashion, especially spousal rape.

I would estimate, that the amount of people who rape, extremely roughly guesstimating, is around 1/10th the population, if not higher.

Some will overlap with the murderers of course, but this is just a thought experiment, and I already think this guess is on the low side, so lets move on.

89% good

Discrimination is where we start chunking hard. Even if you try to be charitable here, surveys show that even within western countries many are ok with and regularly discriminate against people for their inalienable traits. You go to poorer countries or countries with less stable situations and this gets even worse.

Lets just guesstimate that of the non overlaps, this takes 3/10 off the list, giving quite a bit of leeway to people with less blatant instances.

59% good

I could keep going but I hope you see the point I am making here and why I think that if just about anyone here sat down and truly pieced together what the average person was like, with whatever their personal list of disqualifiers from being a good person were, they would quickly come to the conclusion, that most people are not good, and could easily come to the conclusion that many were horrible, depending on what horrible meant in that context. Horrible doesn’t have to be saved for only hitler just because its not used for someone who steals a candy bar.

So many people have a very binary view of others, and Lemmy’s the same, as the downvoting shows.

What a ridiculous argument you’ve made here. The voting system is literally binary. No one can vote 7/10 on messaging, 4/10 on points.

Does this offset his earlier negative behaviour? I honestly think it might do.

This is exactly why hes done it. You don’t know what hes actually responsible for. You don’t see the pharmaceutical investments hes made, farmland he owns, or his bad takes (like recently suggesting that we should abandon the climate because he’s dipping his toes into the AI space).

You see some flashy figures and figure, well that must be a good guy!

Some “nuance” that is.

It absolutely does. Your post gets hidden, and you have a higher likelyhood of moderator interaction. It is less punishing though.

Moderators universally suuuuuuuuck.

contribute to the discourse

Is entirely too vague and subjective.

Upvote-downvote is a great reaction to all the trolls. combined withan algorithm they can surface the good stuff and alert moderators to garbage.

They create a similarly big problem though. Every group has a natural tendency towards members increasingly feeling like they are walking on eggshells with ever more precise purity tests, and any dissent gets hidden.

Lemmys culture of downvoting well written things you disagree with is a problem though. So long as nothing is done about that you can’t make a good algorithm.

Well written is subjective. Something can be long and filled with evidence and still be gibberish or in bad faith.

You also have to have a limit of how much effort you are willing to spend in any given conflict.

Furthermore, trying to change human behaviour in that way rather than finding a system that better accomplishes the goal seems like an impossible goal.

I think the big problem/reason why people feel the need for anonymity is because of what I mention here. Basically, people always feel on pins and needles with regards to shitty moderation.

I actually think further than this, people in power are almost always too blood lusty and immediately jump to permanent bans all the time.

It results in chilling effects that create echo chambers.

Of course what you talk about doesn’t help as it serves to make people even more trigger happy as real bad faith threats exist and you can’t easily tell intent.

I feel like to have real conversations online, maybe a more ideal hypothetical platform would have any sort of legal binding to follow certain terms, they’d require being connected to a real id without storing said personal information in plain text, and would connect that to specific IDs to completely shut down (meaningfully) the botting, to have people actually talk.

People could then chat as themselves, or anonymously under a username, but there would never be confusion as to whether or not someone was real.

This is very half baked though and I already can think of tons of problems.

People suck. People especially suck when they get even a modicum of power.

I feel like forums sucked too because of the lack of sorting.

They just don’t scale well to many users. Once you hit a certain number of users, without some method to sort, its just information overload.

Hell, forum threads that are too long inevitably go completely off the rails and become off topic troves.

I think there has to be a better intermediate format, like perhaps a mix of systems, but I think the main thing that makes reddit-likes suck, is their systems of governance.

Something I realized very quickly with lemmy for instance, is that its the not at all benevolent dictator positions that are the big problem. The main incentives for people choosing to spend their time in mod positions still remains to impose their will, whether that be their opinion or power over others speech.

There is something at its core which is wrong with this system at scale. It allows for mods to collect up critical masses of people before then knowing that due to that critical mass they have captive audiences where there is high friction to leave or start something else.

Lemmy has a very bandaid “solution” for this in that there can be multiple of any given community/subreddit, but they all suffer from the fact that whatever a moderator wants is what happens, and even in the worst case scenarios, that is just moved up one layer to admins, who are incentived to appear as hands off as possible on moderators, lest they get turned on by the people who “help” them.

Reddit sucks because of a lot of other profit driven reasons, but I think this is the main structural problem and lemmy shares in this.

Forums have this problem too by the way, but its just that forums are so separate and so bad at handling massive amounts of casual users, that they run into this far less.