What is the core value proposition of twitter? It seems simple, short form informations delivery (eg “follow me on twitter”) is central. The “likes”, retweets, and follower counts are secondary but perhaps important metrics that drive engagement. A simple link plus QR for paper is needed. Moderation seems a challenge. Are there simpler alternatives to mastodon? is federation possible? Why is RSS not used for this?
I'm not so sure about that. Bluesky by large migrated from twitter aiming to escape the likes of Elon's politics, but they still brought over some of the most toxic cancel/brigade culture that twitter had to offer.
Not suggesting all of bluesky is bad, but it sure ain't the most pleasant crowd in it's own right either.
Bluesky, like Mastodon, is built on an open network on open source code. Run your own data server and moderation services that cater to your needs. Many are already doing it: Northsky, Eurosky, Blacksky, etc. If you want to live in a safe space isolated from the mainnet and its allegedly toxic users, you can do that too: Roundabout is built on ATProto but run on its own network, also Truth Social and Threads are forked versions of Mastodon but federated with nobody (Threads used to have opt-in Mastodon federation before Facebook decided they no longer want users to be able to do that).
Mastodon isn't all that complicated. But, obviously it's not where people went when people fled Xitter, by and large. The funny people and journalists mostly went to Bluesky and the normal people mostly went to Threads because they already had an Instagram account. The Nazis and child pornographers and the people who were comfortable being around Nazis and child pornographers remained on Xitter. But, a few nerds went to the fediverse and we are generally having a nice time there.
RSS is not a read-write medium. You can't realistically carry on a semi-realtime conversation over RSS.
Clearly they approve or they'd at least stop advertising their twitter handles on their websites and handouts. Most brands cannot ignore such a vast network effects and have made the decision to continue despite the changes.
How is product liability relevant here? If an AI company makes a model available, someone uses it, and it does something bad, who is at fault? The user, the data center, or the one who made the model?
If we want open weight models with a warranty disclaimer, then the user would be held liable. If we want to hold AI companies at least partially liable, that
seems a different, centralized model.
I think it’s more complex than that? What did it do? What did the user prompt it to do? What did the company train it to do? What did the harmed party do? There’s possibility for negligence at every level.
If you train a dog, rent it to someone, and the dog bites a third person, who is responsible? I think that’s the best analogue here.
All parties could share fault in that scenario, depending on what actually happened.
The 1:2 match scheme is helpful for a foundation to (a) accept large gift and (b) meet 501c3 1/3rd "public support" requirements.
To keep favorable charity taxation status, a large donation can only be accepted if there are sufficient small donors who also contribute. It's complex and indirect, but the matching is quite real as a $100 contribution from a small donor enables the charity to accept a corresponding amount from large donor pledges.
I was always confused about why charities did this type of matching gifts, it always seemed a bit odd just to trick people to giving right now and not whenever. Interesting that there's a structural reason for it, TIL, thank you
The less useful biometric identification gets, the more we seem to use it.
My bank sent out an a announcement that they will support voice identification, right after a news story went viral of a scammer using a voice cloning model to steal millions of dollars. They pretty quickly followed it up with an announcement that they are aware of cucumbers' concerns and that they will monitor changing technology, but will still support voice identification. What I read from that is that they signed a contract and will keep using the service until after one or more of their customers are exploited.
Some may express societal challenges in ways that inappropriately and wrongly infer intentionality. We can acknowledge their point while strongly disagreeing with their characterization.
There are significant societal impacts of this AI buildout. Some are concerned externalities weigh more heavily on the poor and marginalized. I think state wide data center holds are part of this civil discourse.
I'd prefer we have more conservative pollution standards along with a reasonable tax on AI use that helps mitigate externalities. That's hard. Reasonable people can have fierce disagreements on what market interventions are indicated, and how extensive they should be.
no, you don't have to make up some non-idiotic argument that's kinda vaguely like the dumb one and substitute it in there. it's not necessary! nobody's making you do it and there's no benefit to anybody from doing it!
> 'Help me but don't patronize' is a tall order without some real linguistic gymnastics.
Not at all. Just don't start by guessing what a disabled person's concerns are, or presume that an unsolicited suggestion is helpful. A respectful start is letting them know you will be responsive and let them lead the conversation.
Of the 3 proposals, the 2nd/B seems to be more of an “informed consent” model while the other two are seeking a comprehensive exclusion. I hope earnest dialogue and driving to a broad consensus among significant contributors is forthcoming.
Notable are the endorsements, which are balanced over all three options, perhaps indicating only 1/3 are supportive of a more permissive position. If this represents core contributors, this could be worrisome: a clear majority favoring a exclusion, but yet a sizable portion of contributors who don’t want a ban. Losing 1/3 of core contributors would be a significant loss to the project.
> Notable are the endorsements, which are balanced over all three options, perhaps indicating only 1/3 are supportive of a more permissive position.
That's not the case. First, you can't really extrapolate from endorsers to all of the Debian Developers. Second, endorsers might not have looked at the other proposals at all, and the fact that they only endorsed one option doesn't mean they don't support the others. And you can also endorse an option if you believe it is a valid, useful proposal to add to the GR, even if you don't agree with it personally.
But most importantly, when Debian votes, you don't vote for a single option, instead you rank the choices, and apart from the given options, another option "further discussion" is always added to the list of choices. It's likely that many who rank the most permissive option first will rank the lesser permissive option second, above "further discussion", or they could even give options the same rank (if they really don't think one is better than the other).
> Notable are the endorsements, which are balanced over all three options...
I don't think this is notable. The process requires five seconders, so you're just seeing the set of people who seconded asynchronously before there were obviously enough that others didn't bother. The culture is to avoid unnecessary noise and leave it for the vote.
Depends on your rules of order. Under Robert's you can have multiple seconds but seconds aren't recorded. In model UN there are multiple seconds. Second'ing a motion is not generally an endorsement per se, it's just saying you support a vote on the matter.
I wonder how long software projects will even be able to ban LLM use in an age where exploits are found by LLMs. Like, if you have two forks of Debian and one uses LLMs to fix exploitable bugs and the other one doesn't, the level of security they can offer will be worlds apart. And noone in their right mind would want to use the less secure one. Similar to how noone would want to drive a car that was 100% hand built by humans when we know that machines do a much better job at precision tasks. LLMs are just another tool in the end.
> I wonder how long software projects will even be able to ban LLM use in an age where exploits are found by LLMs.
You can use an LLM to scan your human written code for exploits and patch the relevant ones yourself without any LLM code generation. An LLM is a tool, you can chose how you use it.
Don't ask me how they would know you've used a LLM to "assist" you to find the exploit... I don't even know how they would definitely know if you used a LLM for the code to fix it either.
That's quite naive. We're looking at 50 years of legacy software running Unix/Linux environments. If the attacker with an LLM finds one in minutes it might take you hours to even comprehend the finding. Guess what the attacker with the LLM will do in that time?
There are a few of these "maintainer said no AI pulls, so we forked it" in the wild already and I am really interested to see how it all pans out.
Like, okay, sure, maintainer says AI bug monitoring is cumbersome. One fork stops reading the AI bug monitoring, the other leans in. Isn't the latter more likely to find/fix critical/performance/security issues?
>Similar to how noone would want to drive a car that was 100% hand built by humans
Though, of course, this highlights that the market will fragment itself given that there are in fact many humans who will outright refuse machine driven cars despite mounting evidence that they are vastly safer and more efficient in a growing number of situations.
We'll likely see both "individual who won't use AI assisted software gets hacked" and "individual who won't get in a robo-taxi kills jay-walker in broad daylight"
I think the viability of the fork primarily depends on whether it has enough people motivated to maintain it long term. A turtle can win a distracted hare.
>given that there are in fact many humans who will outright refuse machine driven cars
Are there though? I feel a lot of this hate is concentrated on Tesla and most of that is probably just a projection of hate on Elon. These may be the most vocal people online, but I doubt they even drive that much. Everyone who's had to drive a lot for work knows that any kind of assist on the road is extremely valuable.
> And noone in their right mind would want to use the less secure one.
I mean, this is a perfect description of the prisoner's dilemma. Ins't it a shame that we keep playing that game? There's something seriously wrong if we just keep creating these new arms race scenarios. It's sickening.
reply