I run a niche creative community, and we outlawed AI-generated content in 2022 as it was easy to see how corrosive it would be to the community.
It hasn't been easy. We ban fake AI accounts daily and shrug off around 600 AI content creator accounts monthly.
It's a lot of work, extra work that wasn't needed before AI content came around, and of course, that is an extra cost.
I fear losing the battle.
What about charging $1 or $5 for an account? Seems like you could stem the tide pretty easily with something like that.
Or applying for an account could involve sending a handwritten letter by post.
Right, because I cannot possibly purchase a thousand such letters for less than the cost of minimum wage for an hour or two.
There's a menu bar on the left in which the third option is labelled repository, no?
firefox 150 here.
Right, because I cannot possibly purchase a thousand such letters for less than the cost of minimum wage for an hour or two.
Reminds me of two quotes: The 'curse' that goes "may you live in interesting times" and "Pray for perseverance and that's what you'll get"
Although, I'm not sure I can think of any genuine adversity that one could simply walk away from as you seem to claim to be able to do.
How do you quit a major illness? Systemic prejudice? Homelessness? Imprisonment? War? Famine? Runaway inflation? Depression? Suicidal Ideation? Eating Disorders? Dementia/alzheimers/parkinsons/etc?
Sure, you can sometimes work your way through the situations to the other end, but that's what OP is asking about, isn't it? Where do you get whatever it is you need to make it through? What if there is no way through and the best possible outcome is just dealing with it as in the medical/mental instances?
I had honestly taken it as a good faith community for people struggling with things like doxxing, but sure as shit "How To Detect if You Emit a MAC Address" is on the front page with link to "Fresh Graves w/ Bluetooth mac Addresses" which is a video in which the main character is allegedly detecting bluetooth devices near a fresh grave as if it is emanating from the grave.
Huh, a person thinks they've seen everything, and then...wow...
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that it might be for the "Targeted Indivduals" mentioned in the title.
Clicking on an article it reveals that I am correct:
>Gangstalking Us > >A place for victims of gangstalking
It's a place for targeted people. People who have been targeted.
Seems to be a support group for people struggling with public doxxing and the like.
What if I'm a role playing bot(tom) saying I'm a doctor?
What if I don't disclose that I'm playing a role?
What if I did originally disclose that I was roleplaying but that was thousands of incredibly convincing highly detailed comments ago and only the one time?
What if I'm literally just WebMD but presented in such a fashion as "because you are experiencing X there is a high likelihood that you have $disease and should implement $cure immediately" without the traditional hedging and qualifying?
What if most of the audience seeing an advertisment for a medical intervention hearing "symptoms include x, y, z, death, godhood, and the ability to commune with the devil" truly believe that they themselves are very likely or certain to experience not just one but all of the listed symptoms every single time they are exposed to said intervention?
Should the rule of law protect the vulnerable (those susceptible to influence), or not?
I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here. I'd rather software didn't have superficial culturally influenced laws attached to them, but it is easy to see the harm even if I am rather comfortable with darwinian selection. My being okay with people selecting themselves out of the pool does not preclude me from being able to see that they might want some outside protection from doing so.
To me, the mentioned McDonald's case is pure nonsense. There is no world in which I pay anyone for damages resulting from their interaction with coffee I served them. I do not believe that there are any people who are going to ask me for a coffee, receive it, spill it upon themselves by tampering with the vessel I provided it in, and then be mad to find out that it was indeed quite hot and that there was a reason I put a lid on it. But it is also instructive in the relevant mechanism. My understanding that hot liquids are dangerous is apparently not enough in that context. There is a reality in which I was supposed to somehow prevent the user from harming themselves with the dangerous item they asked for. As if I could be blamed for someone who died from shooting themselves when I sold them a gun, or cutting themselves when I sold them a knife.
We learn from the case that laws, the "court of public opinion", and genuine morality, bear only passing resemblance. See the recent ongoing case in which an LLM provider is being sued for providing advice on how to carry out a shooting as if the same information is not available on countless websites. See the relatively recent outrage over video games causing an increase in violence.
This is the genuine article.
I feel as if open weight models are equivalent to open source software. They might be better, they might be worse. They are frequently "worse" in many terms, but at least we, the user, know what is going on.
There is no telling what weird analysis and exfiltration is going on in a closed source/closed weight model, or what's been censored/deleted/disabled from what otherwise could have been possible.
Open weight models will continue to exist for exactly as long as open source software continues to exist which is likely to be exactly as long as software in general continues to exist.
I was genuinely confused to be linked from a community discussion of a link to another community discussion of a link.
Let's see...if I linked to a lobsters post that links to tumblr post that links to a personal blog that links to a substack that links an arxive of a blog that mentions an arxiv that...
It just feels as if there can be only one reason to link to the lobsters discussion instead of the content at hand, no?