I like Tesseract. Photon and Alexandrite are also great (although Alexandrite is a bit out of date, but I haven’t had any issues). Also check out Quiblr maybe. It has a very different feel.

[Always has been.png]

Thanks, I appreciate the insight.

This could be a major vector for malicious actors. Try to block me? I’ll just edit my description to cut off from every community.

Why do humans allow cats to ride in their arms?

Dead internet is only a theory. Like gravity.

I saw an interesting thing about textiles recently. Sewing and knitting were considered basic essential skills until a generation or two ago.

Bad bot.

Sometimes I forget how brutal the early 2000s were.

Having a number of different editors allows manipulating the discussion and concensus protections built into Wikipedia.

Depending on the topic, it may not be necessary. A complimentary article about a new technology product or company founder just takes a few press releases that get picked up. Manipulating world events and leaders requires more coordination.

Although manipulating the sources cited is a great way to manipulate Wikipedia. You have to recruit 10-40 people to act as a group of editors to manufacture concensus across topics. Or you can just create a website or series of press releases.

“Hey, this small-town museum has an article about a historical event. It must be true. Link it at the bottom.” Or “well, this local newspaper article says it is happened, so into the article it goes.”

Even more effective, especially for political groups, is just publish dozens of supportive articles, while miring competing articles in edit wars and the bureaucracy that comes with it. For sources, just cite expert books that are favorable. It’s not easy, but hiring or recruiting 10-40 editors is trivial for political entities.

We honestly need to end the myth that Wikipedia is some impenetrable white tower. It can and has been infiltrated by corporate and political groups, and even creative vandals.

It’s the most valuable digital property in the world. You think people break into the Louvre but can’t touch Wikipedia?

I had the same reaction! I had to log into the screwy web portal and test it to realize it was something else entirely.

If they built out a Mastodon network with government support, then it would.

Uh, Mastodon exists?

So the people killing women for partially uncovering their hair are the good guys?

The people murdering thousands of protestors are the good guys?

So the religious fundamentalists imposing doctrine at gunpoint are the good guys?

I think the people protesting for their lives and freedoms are the good guys, but that’s just me.

People don’t read them but I think that’s not usually the point. The people I know who have written them usually end up with boxes in their garage that they eventually give at to friends and family.

It’s still a nice accomplishment and a good personal growth thing.

I actually have no recollection of why some records had the big holes in the first place. Were there players with a chonky spindle in the middle?

Just to be clear, companies know that LLMs are categorically bad at giving life advice/ emotional guidance. They also know that personal decision making is the most common use of the software. They could easily have guardrails in place to prevent it from doing that.

They will never do that.

This is by design. They want people to develop pseudo-emotional bonds with the software, and to trust the judgment in matters of life guidance. In the next year or so, some LLM projects will become profitable for the first time as advertisers flock to the platforms. Injecting ads into conversations with a trusted confidant is the goal. Incluencing human behaviour is the goal.

By 2028, we will be reading about “ChatGPT told teen to drink Pepsi until she went into a sugar coma.”