The catarrhine who invented a perpetual motion machine, by dreaming at night and devouring its own dreams through the day.
But there’s enough of a problem you can see even if you just start at Julius, which is what I was concentrating on in my previous comment. The parallels to Trump are terrifyingly on the nose.
True that.
Weirdly enough (or perhaps not surprisingly) I see the same here with Bolsonaro supporters; there’s a disproportionally high amount of them among classicists, even if humanities as a whole leans heavily to the left.
The alt right obsesses over the Roman empire, but ignores the republic, as if Julius Caesar and Octavius were the origin of everything. As such I’m not surprised that they don’t learn about what caused the fall of the republic. (A century or so of oppressed masses and greedy elites did it.)
And, even when it comes to the empire, they’re busier cherry-picking examples that show that the grass was greener, the men were manlier, the women were chaster, and dogs barked quieter.
At least when it comes to languages, the eurocentrism and subjectivity are being addressed for at least a century. Sapir for example proposed that the “classical languages” weren’t just two but five - Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Latin, Sanskrit. And the definition became roughly “varieties with a heavy and outlasting impact outside their native communities”. (Personally I’d also add Sumerian, Quechua and Nahuatl to that list. But that’s just me.)
Additionally plenty linguists see the idea of “classic” not as specific languages, but as a potential stage of a language, assigned retroactively to the period when its prestige and cultural production were specially strong. For example, Classical Ge’ez is defined as the one from centuries XIII~XIV.
For further info, here’s Gazeta do Povo’s article, from 14/Jan/2023, that this one refers to… or rather copypastes without linking - the overall discourse and claims are the same.
Okay. Can I be honest here? This is piles of propaganda coming from multiple sides, and anyone claiming to know the truth is probably just assuming. It’s a bloody mess of interests.
And since I do not know the veracity of the claims themselves, I’ll instead focus on who is saying what, and the likely reason why.
The original is from a conservative newspaper from my city, Curitiba. It used to serve our local audience (Paraná state) but, around 2015 or so, the overall focus shifted: instead of being Paraná’s newspaper it became Brazil’s right wing newspaper. The motivation was simply “selling subscriptions for outsiders”.
That article’s claim about Confucius Institute promoting a hidden agenda ultimately backtracks to FBI and CIA (note: this article is linked as source in the other one that I’ve linked.) I’ll leave as an exercise for the readers to guess how trustable the USA government is when it comes to China, and vice versa, given that both countries are fighting a cold war.
Now let’s talk about Diálogo Américas. It’s directly tied with USA’s military - its own words
Diálogo is a “U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) activity comprising a website, a print magazine, and associated social media devoted to building partnership and cooperation among partner nations.”
Given the backstory of relationships between the government of USA and other governments of the Americas, this can be safely rephrased as “we’re military, devoted to enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine.”
Ah, and most likely China is doing its thing too in this regard. How much, we do not know. It might be worth checking what those partnerships with universities are about; there’s a lot of room for propaganda in something like social studies, but if it’s something like semiconductors or the likes the claim is probably bollocks.
Are you noticing what’s happening here?
It’s like a telephone game done for the sake of the context-tomy.
I’ll remain sceptic on the claim until the paper is peer reviewed by people who actually know the stuff in it, unlike me.
I didn’t know that I needed to know about Jevons’ paradox. Such a simple but brilliant reasoning.
You’ll get less pollution and crash deaths if, instead of trying to improve cars, society improved transportation methods that compete with cars: walking, biking, public transport, so goes on. They either don’t show those issues, or show them in a meaningfully lower level.
Instantly subscribed to that comm.
Reddit Gold is a great example IMO.
If Reddit’s goal was to serve users, instead of profit, it might’ve still implemented Reddit Gold. A site doesn’t run for free, and having another source of income could help to serve users better.
However then the nature of Reddit Gold would be completely different:
Reddit could’ve become a non-profit for users, financed by them. So the outcome was avoidable, at least years and years in the past.
But for that Pigboy and kn0thing would need to give up the pretension of drinking champagne in an IPO. kn0thing gave up too late; Pigboy never did.
A good “dividing line” where the outcome became fixed was the introduction of Reddit Gold.
There were even earlier signs of Reddit caring more about profit than the best interests of the users.
2014: buying and crippling Alien Blue. Reddit could’ve built its own official app and users would have two to choose from; or it could have bought and improved Alien Blue. By doing neither, Reddit showed complete disdain towards user experience.
2015: Reddit fired Victoria Taylor. Except that Taylor did an essential job there, as she was a bridge between Reddit Inc. and mod teams; she was for example the one verifying people for Ask me Anything (back then it was a big deal).
You probably could find even more signs of that, if digging further. And while neither is as serious as the way that Reddit handled T_D, both already show that it was putting revenue over users.
I remember reading your text back then. It’s great, and it shows something that neither the article in the OP nor my comment show - the role of network effect in the process.
I think that this article is accurate and sensible.
There’s a point that I’d like to add, that the author doesn’t mention: user trust.
The main value of an online platform is the user trust, as it dictates the users’ willingness to help building it instead of vandalising it. In Reddit’s case it means people writing well-thought posts, moderating communities, reporting content, using the voting system, etc.
And user trust is violated every time that a platform takes user-hostile decisions. Like Reddit has been taking for almost a decade; with 2023’s APIcalypse being a big example of that, but only one among many.
And when user trust is violated, it’s almost impossible to come back. John Bull explains this well, with the Trust Thermocline; but the basic idea is that those violations pile up invisibly upon a certain point, when they suddenly become a big deal and the platform bleeds users like there’s no tomorrow. And once it reaches that point it’s practically impossible to come back.
So perhaps we aren’t watching Reddit die. Nor we will, in the future - because Reddit is already dead. What we’re watching instead, with morbid curiosity, is a headless chicken running around, while we place some bets on when it will stop moving - so venture capital can have its dinner.
I found an interesting scientific article talking about this topic, focusing on the Americas. Here’s a link if anyone is interested.
Special emphasis on this map. Red circle = woman buried with hunting tools for large prey.
This also reminds me the etymology of the Amazon rainforest, after the mythical female warriors. Apparently a Spanish explorer fought some “tapuya” (non-Tupi) people, with men and women taking on arms. And when you think about it, the same set of skills and attributes necessary for war are useful to hunt large non-humans, and vice versa.
Really my point is there are enough things to criticize about LLMs and people’s use of them, this seems like a really silly one to try and push.
The comment that you’re replying to is fairly specifically criticising the usage of the word “hallucination” to misrepresent the nature of the undesirable LLM output, in the context of people selling you stuff by what it is not.
It is not “pushing” another “thing to criticise about LLMs”. OK? I have my fair share of criticism against LLMs themselves, but that is not what I’m doing right now.
Continuing (and torturing) that analogy, […] max_int or small buffers.
When we extend analogies they often break in the process. That’s the case here.
Originally the analogy works because it shows a phony selling a product by what it is not. By making the phony to precompute 4*10¹² equations (a completely unrealistic situation), he stops being a phony to become a muppet doing things the hard way.
If it were the case that there had only been one case of a hallucination with LLMs, I think we could pretty safely call that a malfunction
If it happens 0.000001% of the time, I think we could still call it a malfunction and that it performs better than a lot of software.
Emphases mine. Those “ifs” represent a completely unrealistic situation, that does not show anything useful about the real situation.
We know that LLMs output “hallucinations” way more than just once, or 0.000001% of the time. They’re common enough to show you how LLMs work.
To make it worse decision makers - regardless of country - are typically old and clueless about “this computer stuff”. As such they literally don’t see the problem.
I did read the paper fully, but I’m going to comment mostly based on the challenged that the OP refers to.
My belief is that the article is accurate on highlighting that the Fediverse on its own is not enough to reclaim the internet. However, it’s still a step in the right direction and should be nurtured as such.
Discoverability as there is no central or unified index
Yes, discovery is harder within a federated platform than a centralised one. However the indices that we use don’t need to be “central” or “unified” - it’s completely fine if they’re decentralised and brought up by third parties, as long as people know about them.
Like Lemmy Explorer for example; it’s neither “central” nor “unified”, it’s simply a tool made by a third party, and yet it solves the issue nicely.
Complicated moderation efforts due to its decentralized nature
This implicit idea, that moderation efforts should be co-ordinated across a whole platform, quickly leads to unsatisfied people - either because they don’t feel safe or because they don’t feel like they can say what they think. Or both.
Let us not fool ourselves by falsely believing that moderation always boils down to “remove CSAM and Nazi” (i.e. “remove things that decent people universally consider as bad”). Different communities want to be moderated in different, sometimes mutually exclusive, ways. And that leads to decentralised moderation efforts.
In other words: “this is not a bug, this is a feature.”
[Note: the above is not an endorsement of Lemmy’s blatant lack of mod tools.]
Interoperability between instances of different types (e.g., Lemmy and Funkwhale)
Because yeah, the interoperability between Twitter, YouTube and Reddit is certainly better. /s
I’m being cheeky to highlight that, as problematic that the interoperability between instances of different types might be in the Fediverse, it’s still something that you don’t typically see in traditional media.
Concentration on a small number of large instances
Yes, user concentration into a few instances is a problem, as it gives the instance admins too much power. However, there’s considerably less room for those admins to act in a user-hostile way, before users pack their stuff up and migrate - because the cost of switching federated instances is smaller than the cost of switching non-federated platforms.
The risk of commercial capture by Big Tech
Besides what I said above, on the concentration of users, consider the fact that plenty Fediverse instances defederated Threads. What is this, if not the usage of the Fediverse features to resist commercial capture?
It gets worse, when you remember that there’s no dividing line between harmful and healthy content. Some content is always harmful, some is by default healthy, but there’s a huge gradient of content that needs to be consumed in small amounts - not doing it leads to alienation, and doing it too much leads to a cruel worldview.
This is doubly true when dealing with kids and adolescents. They need to know about the world, and that includes the nasty bits; but their worldviews are so malleable that, if all you show them is nasty bits, they normalise it inside their heads.
It’s all about temperance. And yet temperance is exactly the opposite of what those self-reinforcing algorithms do. If you engage too much with content showing nasty shit, the algo won’t show you cats being derps to “balance things out”. No, it’ll show you even more nasty shit.
It gets worse due to profiling, mentioned in the text. Splitting people into groups to dictate what they’re supposed to see leads to the creation of extremism.
In the light of the above, I think that both Kaung and Cai are missing the point.
Kaung believes that children+teens would be better if they stopped using smartphones; sorry but that’s stupid, it’s proposing to throw the baby out with the dirty bathtub water.
Cai on the other hand is proposing nothing but a band-aid. We don’t need companies to listen to teens to decide what we should be seeing; we need them to stop altogether deciding what teens and everyone else should be seeing.
Ah, and about porn, mentioned on the text: porn is at best a small example of a bigger issue, if not a red herring distracting people from the issue altogether.
I wouldn’t call pasting verbatim training data hallucination when it fits the prompt. It’s not necessarily making stuff up.
I’ve seen it being called hallucination plenty of times. Because the output is undesirable - even if it satisfies the prompt, it is not something you’d want the end user to see, as it shows that the whole thing is built upon the unpaid labour of everyone who uses the internet.
How would you call it? Only by their specific issues? Or would you use a general term, like “error” or “wrong”?
Calling the output by what it is (false, or immoral, or nonsensical) instead of a catch-all would be a progress, I think.
When it comes to the code itself you’re right, there’s no difference between “bug” and “not a bug”. The difference is how humans classify the behaviour.
And yet there’s a clear mismatch between what the developers of those large “language” models know that they’re able to do, versus what LLMs are being promoted for, and that difference is what is being called “hallucination”. They are not intelligent systems, the info that they output is not reliably accurate, it’s often useless rubbish. But instead of acknowledging it they label it “hallucination”.
Perhaps an example would be good here. Suppose that I made a text editor; it works nicely as a text editor and nothing much else. Then I make it automatically find and replace the string “=2+2” with “4”, and use it to showcase my text editor as if it was a calculator. “Look, it can do maths!”.
Then the user types down “=3+3”, expecting the “calculator” to output “6”, and it doesn’t. Can we really claim that the user found a “bug”? Not really. It’s just that I’m a phony and I sold him a text editor as if it was a calculator.
And yet that’s exactly what happens with LLMs.
As another user and me were discussing, in another thread about the same topic, I believe that the 10% admix is likely due to coastal settlements here in South America. Nothing too fancy, just to facilitate trade. Specially with the folks in Central Andes, as the Andeans had a good and large (albeit land-based) trade network already. And, well, when you run this sort of settlement you’re bound to interact with locals, right?