Michael

Thanks for engaging, I largely agree with you and really appreciate your responses. I’m glad we finally had the opportunity to talk.

Critical thinking is necessary, but that’s not really something we socialists have any power over in the broad populace.

I believe that we all have the power to educate others to think for themselves and to think critically. It may not be as substantive and impactful as we’d like from a single interaction, but it’s nothing to write off. I feel that there is a lot of untapped potential for all of us to realize, especially with the use of modern technology.

The internet is an truly an amazing thing for humanity. I just have to point out the work r/LateStageCapitalism has done to educate and inform others over the years. Many people have likely been radicalized due to their work (i.e. encouraged to think for themselves and see beyond mainstream narratives) and I’m pretty sure it’s a ML space, as well.

It’s easy to see that traditional institutions are losing trust broadly and that mainstream media is falling off. The narrative seems very difficult for those currently in power to both spread and control the perception of.

I try to do my best to explain that I want a better world, but that also requires being honest and forthright with me being a communist, and explaining exactly what that means and why.

I value your example and honesty. I have witnessed many interactions between you and other people on the fediverse and I applaud your efforts and diplomacy.

As for Marxism-Leninism, I’d argue its controversy mostly stems from it being the branch with the most actual existence in the real world.

Most people here on the fediverse loosely agree on what needs to change, but most of the disagreement I feel comes from the methodology of bringing about that change. I’d say there is a time and place to discuss methodology or introduce people into specific ideology, but getting people to realize a better world is possible is something we can all work broadly work towards and I feel there is a lot of value in that sort of action.

I argue that the first steps to creating broad coherence with others involves encouraging independent thought/critical thinking, emphasizing our shared humanity and desire for a better world for everyone, and subtly working to reduce polarization (such as conditioned fear/hate/dehumanization of others) in any way possible.

I understand this is a ML space and I respect your ideology, but I have to point out that it isn’t the only socialist ideology - and it’s a fairly polarizing one at that. What could be done to help bridge the gap among socialists, even just here on the fediverse?

For most people, the best case scenario is vacuuming their floors with offline options.

These propagandized individuals are emotionally manipulated to hate communists and see them as dangerous by capitalist institutions, but they are in no way, shape, or form exposed to the ideas that communists express in an impartial manner.

I’d argue that it is rare that understanding is properly conveyed through labels. People attach their own understanding to labels - and these propagandized individuals are conditioned to believe they understand communists, but in reality they are just trained to dehumanize and hate communists. They don’t understand.

So, how does this dynamic shift?

It’s likely in everybody’s best interest that this is a wild success. Not only will game developers be incentivized to actually optimize their games for reasonable setups; this will unseat Nvidia’s monopoly over gamers with their ridiculously overpriced graphics cards and also Microsoft’s monopoly of a gamer’s operating system.

Nvidia’s partnership with Palantir is incredibly concerning and any blow to Nvidia is a welcome one. Encourage these developments and hype this all up.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

As Wikipedia succinctly (and loosely) put it, anarchy is society without rulers - a society without authority or hierarchy. Authority and hierarchy would definitely be present in anarcho-capitalism. Wealth, power, and influence would likely still concentrate into the hands of the few (i.e. rulers).

It’s essentially just capitalism without an official state and practices like regulation or reigning in corporate power. Corporations would function effectively as states in such a scenario.

I just don’t think it’ll ever be anything close to 99% effective given that this is a website. I explained why previously.

Thanks for engaging though - I do understand and appreciate the necessity of bot prevention and I’ll be sure to keep an eye out as a user.

As another user suggested to me in the past, there could be government-run social media that requires ID at sign-up. Maybe a service like that would appeal to you if our government (apologies if you aren’t US-based) wasn’t labeling certain speech as terrorism.

I trust instance owners and software developers to sort this out in a privacy-respecting way. If a specific instance breaks my trust, I might find it necessary to block it.

I don’t support violations of privacy and I appreciate some level of pseudonymity and anonymity in social media.

Who is going to vet the vetters? What if they become compromised or were compromised from the beginning? What recourse is there for users if there are data breaches?

If there was an actor behind a handful of accounts that are mostly run by LLMs (which mimic human input and interaction) it’d be easily viable for state-level or professional actors to pull such an operation off at scale and successfully manipulate a small platform like the fediverse - especially with some level of manual input or confirmation. Even taking believable selfies of real people that fit the profile is possible and can be anticipated if the actor or the organization behind them are resourceful.

I’m not entirely against instance-level detection that attempts to understand user patterns and prevent or flag abuse to mods and admins, but I do believe that humanized input and interaction can already be effectively emulated and will only advance as time passes.

I believe that increased scrutiny of users in a centralized manner is a privacy violation. I picked my instance intentionally and I give some level of trust to the instance owners, but I wouldn’t consent to them (or the software they choose to use) handing over my PII or usage patterns to a third-party group that suspects me (even through purely automated mechanisms). I would discontinue using the service in such a scenario.

To support my point that bot detection is mostly futile on the fediverse, I’d like to draw your attention to a parallel to this situation in gaming with humanized aimbots - which are already incredibly viable and are implemented in a variety of ways.

There are usually actual human actors guiding input to some degree, but the aimbot/etc. is designed to mimic human input to achieve believable results. I believe this technology could still advance quite a bit and there are new methods popping up as every day passes.

The key difference between gaming and the fediverse, is that the fediverse is not software running on our computers at the kernel-level (as with most anti-cheat) - it’s a website running in a browser.

Ultimately, I feel it boils down to just blocking instances that you disagree with the operation of to curate your experience - which is already available on Lemmy.

I disagree with the notion that we need a centralized list or that such a list is desirable. Again - I trust instances to sort this out.

As LLMs and deepfaking technology advance, the likely result will be completely undetectable bots that effectively mimic human behavior, even with advanced and potentially automated defenses.

See: https://theintercept.com/2024/10/17/pentagon-ai-deepfake-internet-users/

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to have to e.g. take a selfie in a specific way to be able to use the fediverse and have the ability to reach a broad audience - just because I am hypothetically suspected. Such a list will also likely chill participation, as an unintended effect.

None of that data proves anything besides potentially identifying bots, as you suggest.

It’s just an exercise in group paranoia - and would likely be abused by actual state/professional actors attempting to silence users/create bubbles.

Personally, I trust that the mods and admins will sort the bots/vote manipulation out. As for the bad actors, we can counter their propaganda with our good faith participation and our efforts to lead others to the truth.

You’re suggesting a public blacklist with thorough vetting, I just thought it’d be fair for you to step forward in such a hypothetical scenario. But you’re right, it’s not feasible - nobody can definitively prove that they are an independent actor.

Would you volunteer to be vetted first?

Okay, now split into at least 4 different companies and compete with each other - if we want the illusion of a free market and competition to exist in the minds of those living under capitalism.

It would be wise to make openly manipulating social media systematically (with or without AI) illegal, immediately.

Social media is for real people to freely engage and share their viewpoints, not for bot farms and other forms of organized astroturfing to shape opinion by appearing as independently-affiliated real people.

Discourse is an incredibly valuable tool for humanity, and we can’t let this be taken away from us - especially by those making a killing off of it or those paying for the privilege.

Are you personally invested in the AI/LLM space? I’m wondering why you chose to engage with very few of my arguments. Is your account a troll account? If you’re not trolling: re-read. I will not engage further until you adequately address my points.

I was pretty clear: there is no intelligence. AGI is an absolute pipe dream and it will also be a far cry from actual intelligence if you look into it. Hallucinations won’t be fixed unless the technology evolves - adding more GPU power won’t be able to fix it.

The copyright theft is an extreme issue, regardless your hand-waving of it. Copyright law reform is not perceivably on the table. Major companies are caught red-handed stealing and these companies have no intention of compensating the rights-holders they stole from.

The technology (at least with current methodologies) is flawed: that’s why people are warning of the bubble bursting. We can’t properly scale LLMs on our current grid in the same capacity as China. Our technologies are also incredibly energy-intensive compared to their technologies.

There is no intelligence, the hallucinations are likely fundamental, the cases of people being given dangerous or harmful advice are rising, human AI psychosis is a real concern, the sycophancy/bias confirmation is still present, and major actors in the AI space are existentially afraid of any form of regulation of the technology/industry (which does not signal confidence).

Also, it’s critical to factor in the whole copyright issue with training data… one domino is all it takes to collapse the whole thing.

From the mass employee layoffs to being caught using ChatGPT for subtitles

So caught using ChatGPT and then doubling down on using AI for subtitles in the worst possible way? Wow…

People pay for an anime streaming service to do better than fan-based translations, not worse.

Thanks for the exchange, it seems you misunderstood my intentions in commenting/responding.

I will stand by my points: corporate policy and course of action isn’t always by the book — it can be unevenly enforced (depending on the circumstance, environment, and context).

As for me? I’ll never work for Nazis or in environments ruled by people roleplaying as Nazis. It’s demeaning.

The cool thing is that you can have better security without such an atmosphere — and I described it: it starts with locked-down systems and networks, IT actually being approachable human beings that communicate (who also understand business needs and requirements), policies that only punish and target bad actors (because it is effectively impossible for good faith actors to violate them), and accessible procedures for employees to escalate their needs to IT.

Anyway, have a good one. I apologize for being slightly rude with my phrasing, but I truly am aware of how draconian some environments are (especially depending on the context) and it was rude of you to confidently assert that I had no idea.