For succinctness I’ll interpret “stupid” = “immoral and/or false”.

This assumes your typical person naturally discards a stupid discourse, once you show it’s stupid. I don’t think they do; instead they’ll discard a discourse that conflicts with their world view, and is not emotionally engaging enough to replace it.

In the light of that, “let the Nazi talk” sounds like a notoriously bad idea. Specially when the Nazi in question are highly rhetorical, i.e. make their stupidity highly emotionally engaging.

A better approach is to address the core claims of the Nazi discourse, in absence of their rhetoric, showing why they’re stupid (and cringe). That’s basically what a lot of people already do.

I believe that good communication has four attributes.

1. It’s approachable: it demands from the reader (or hearer, or viewer) the least amount of reasoning and previous knowledge, in order to receive the message.
2. It’s succinct: it demands from the reader the least amount of time.
3. It’s accurate: it neither states nor implies (for a reasonable = non-assumptive receiver) anything false.
4. It’s complete: it provides all relevant information concerning what’s being communicated.

However no communication is perfect and those four attributes are in odds with each other: if you try to optimise your message for one or more of them, the others are bound to suffer.

Why this matters here: it shows the problem of ablation is unsolvable. Even if generative models were perfectly competent at rephrasing text (they aren’t), simply by asking them to make the text more approachable, you’re bound to lose info or accuracy. Specially in the current internet, where you got a bunch of skibidi readers who’ll screech “WAAAAH!!! TL;DR!!!” at anything with more than two sentences.

I’d also argue “semantic ablation” is actually way, way better as a concept than “hallucination”. The later is not quite “additive error”; it’s a misleading metaphor for output that is generated by the model the same way as the rest, but it happens to be incorrect when interpreted by human beings.

Yeah, those systems are totally intelligent and they totally understand what you say. Including things like “you can’t wash your car without your car present”. *sigh*

Eventually they’ll patch this specific issue up, without solving the underlying issue (lack of reasoning).

I’ve seen something similar in Italian: some call it “carta stagnola” (roughly “little tin paper”), but the default is “foglio di alluminio” (aluminium sheet). Never saw it in Portuguese though, it’s always “papel alumínio” (aluminium paper), even for the hats.

Last episode had Frieren tracking ore in a mine. If this was in Minecraft it would be a problem, because the most common type of cheat is to track where the ores are (through x-ray tools).

If it was just X-raying silver in modded servers that’d be fine, but she also uses flyhacks.

Aluminium foil is made a lot like pasta: you put an ingot in a mill, then rolls press it from both sides over and over so the ingot becomes thinner and lengthier. And at the final step the foil is so thin that you need to mill two layers of foil at the same time, otherwise it’ll break. The side of the foil touching another layer of foil becomes dull. And the side touching the roll becomes shiny.

Note that for all practical purposes both sides behave the same.

This was owned by nuns (the page says it’s conventual [from a convent]), and probably made by themselves.

Link to the archived version of the article in question.

I actually like the editor’s note. Instead of naming-and-shaming the author (Benj Edwards), it’s blaming “Ars Technica”. It also claims they looked for further issues. It sounds surprisingly sincere for corporate apology.

Blaming AT as a whole is important because it acknowledges Edwards wasn’t the only one fucking it up. Whatever a journalist submits needs to be reviewed by at least a second person, exactly for this reason: to catch up dumb mistakes. Either this system is not in place or not working properly.

I do think Edwards is to blame but I wouldn’t go so far as saying he should be fired, unless he has a backstory of doing this sort of dumb shit. (AFAIK he doesn’t.) “People should be responsible for their tool usage” is not the same as “every infraction deserves capital punishment”; sometimes scolding is enough. I think @[email protected]’s comment was spot on in this regard: he should’ve taken sick time off, but this would have cost him vacation time, and even being forced to make this choice is a systemic problem. So ultimately it falls on his employer (AT) again.

For reference here’s the archived article.

I never played DCSS. Does it have anything to cause monster infighting, like Nethack does with the ring of conflict? If yes, that would be probably your best bet: let them fight, and kill the survivor.

Either way this looks extremely nasty.

Oh fuck. Then it gets even worse (and funnier). Because even if that was a human contributor, Shambaugh acted 100% correctly, and this defeats the core lie outputted by the bot.

If you got a serious collaborative project, you don’t want to enable the participation of people who act based on assumptions. Because those people ruin everything they touch with their “but I thought that…”, unless you actively fix their mistakes — i.e. more work for you.

And yet once you construe that bloody bot’s output as if they were human actions, that’s exactly what you get — a human who assumes. A dead weight and a burden.

It remains an open question whether it was set up to do that, or, more probably, did it by itself because the Markov chain came up with the wrong token.

A lot of people would disagree with me here, but IMO they’re the same picture. In either case, the human enabling the bot’s actions should be blamed as if those were their own actions, regardless of their “intentions”.

Because it’s a piece of addictive design. Here in Lemmy it’s fairly isolated, so not a big deal; but in larger and corporate platforms, it’s coupled with even more addictive design, in a way that you’re basically “stuck”.

The somebody in question, clarifying it: “I like waffles. I just like pancakes better.”

The crowd: “I don’t understand, you like pancakes or waffles? I’m so confused…” and/or “STOP PLAYING BOTH SIDES!” and/or “BACKPEDALLIN” and/or “than u admit pancakes r awful?” etc.

Pretty much this.

I have a lot of issues with this sort of model, from energy consumption (cooking the planet) to how easy it is to mass produce misinformation. But I don’t think judicious usage (like at the top) is necessarily bad; the underlying issue is not the tech itself, but who controls it.

However. Someone letting an AI “agent” rogue out there is basically doing the later, and expecting the others to accept it. “I did nothing wrong! The bot did it lol lmao” style. (Kind of like Reddit mods blaming Automod instead of themselves when they fuck it up.)

IIRC Dessalines (Lemmy and Jerboa frontend dev) once said to regret adding infinite scrolling, and the only reason he didn’t remove the feature is because people would rage. So odds are Jerboa will be one of the first to comply.

And… frankly? As much as I criticise Lemmy devs, I think Dessalines is right in this one.

It’s more like

• [This case] “etymology shows this usage of the word is acceptable”
• [Typically] “language change shows the usage of that other word is also acceptable”

IMO they’re both poor grounds to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage. But they don’t really contradict each other; in fact they’re both the same fallacy (fallacy of origins aka genetic fallacy).

I believe a better way to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage is to highlight language is a communication system; the point is not to use this or that word, it’s to convey meaning. So if $vegetable milk conveys the meaning, it’s fine; if “skibidi” also conveys meaning, it’s also fine.

Just my two cents.

Mayor Poopington is likely talking about the fibre around mature coconuts (left).

Context: Discord.