@dessalines@lemmy.ml being as sharp as always, thank you for sharing this! I somehow missed that essay in the past, and recently even had a discussion where I argued in favor of signal. His overview makes some great points that shouldn't be dismissed offhandedly. The important point is to not make the mistake of shunning signal in favor of an even less secure alternative. Also the user's threat model should be taken into account. Those who aren't anticapitalists (yet) might need to worry less about the concerns.

Hmm, this is a topic that has been debated for years, I guess instead of writing my own summaries, it's great to link you to some resources, outlining why modern AI ("LLM"/"GPT") is controversial:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model#Safety
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model#Societal_concerns
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#Limitations
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slop

Note that some issues apply only given certain output (e.g. hallucinations), some depend on the usage (the decision to generate and publicize AI slop is made by human operators), whereas some issues are always present (e.g. huge environmental impact).

Regarding the there being a difference between good and bad AI or not: Some people argue that it's always bad, some are bit more nuanced, some are competely blind/ignorant to the problem. Only those in the middle camp would necessarily see a difference.

"For some reason, all the planes that I personally look at have that owo"

I might have a wild guess as to who's responsible.

Short answer: The automobile lobby prevents it.

our hero! (Assuming the ratio keeps getting better)

I don't use such terms, but I'll try a possible explanation: There is indeed a certain tendency. Articles are mostly written by speakers of that language. For example English articles by English-spreading editors tend to be influenced by western ideology. If you'd look at, I dunno, Russian Wikipedia, I'd assume it's a similar situation.

It's known that there are indeed paid government agents editing Wikipedia. But even those that are not are influenced by the Zeitgeist, which itself is informed by state propaganda. So we don't need to assume intentional malice.

Ideally, people complaining about Wikipedia would have the time and skill to improve it. But that's easier said than done.

the post already links to a summary, but tl;dr

the state seeks to charge Meta for supporting grooming of minors, because adding chat encryption obstructed law enforcement. Criminalizing the design decision to add encryption might deter all companies.

Some of the most damaging evidence in both trials came from internal company documents where employees raised concerns about safety risks and discussed tradeoffs. [...] the rational corporate response is to stop putting anything in writing. Stop doing risk assessments. Stop asking hard questions internally. [...] That makes everyone less safe.

It's not always about the leength, but how you use it.

It's great until you unmute it

But is also easy (to be pressured) to turn numb. And if this went on long enough, the internalize our position. The topic of animal cruelty leads into cognitive dissonance, which we avoid with self-harming psychological tricks like rationalization.

On the other hand, IMO vegan farmers / former farmers / vegans raised on a farm have some additional credibility when making the argument for veganism. I liked this about Dr. Caldwell Essylstein.

This happened to me yesterday. Turned out that the site had a password length limit on the reset-password-form, but not on the login page.

As a new user, I'll just say thank you