What are the biases of Lemmy?
-
I'm more a The Expanse type of person
I’m more a The Expanse type of person
So say we all! Oh wait, that's a different one too...
-
Lemmy is not neurotypical and it shows up with various discussions. Discussions here tend to assume autism or AuDHD as typical behavior, when it is only typical for the group of people assembled here.
Also half of all lemmings are transgender. No idea why.
-
.world is the right wing instance
I'm on .world, and I'd happily throw all the billionaires into an industrial shredder.
-
It's the same thing. It's about protesting against big companies that hurt workers and artists.
Yes, exactly what I'm saying. People on the Fediverse hate AI more than they support piracy, because when there's a situation that involves both enabling piracy and helping AI they will side with the anti-piracy side in order to hurt the AI side. The Fediverse has more of an anti-AI bias than it has a pro-piracy bias.
-
What do you think Lemmy is most biased about? Which opinions do you think differ most from the general internet?
(Excluding US politics, due to community rules)
Commonly mentioned biases:
Subject Mentions Pro-Privacy 2 Left-Wing 9 Anti-Capitalism 5 American 5 Older 2 Pro-Linux 3 Tech people 5 Anti-Ai 4 Pro-LBTQ+ 3 Anti religion 3 Pro-Communism 3 Bonus: Gaming Biases
Subject Mentions Nintendo hate 3 Pro-SteamDeck 1 Anti-GOG 1 PC over console 1 Nintendo is worse than EA, Activision, Konami, Ubisoft, Epic, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Nestle, and the IDF combined.
There may be some things they do that annoy me, but there also a lot of things they do that I like, and I don't think they're anywhere near the worst in the industry right now. It is just so very tiring that it is seemingly impossible to discuss anything related to Nintendo at all without threads immediately devolving into a circlejerk about how much some of y'all hate anyone who dares to even enjoy their games.
-
Yes, exactly what I'm saying. People on the Fediverse hate AI more than they support piracy, because when there's a situation that involves both enabling piracy and helping AI they will side with the anti-piracy side in order to hurt the AI side. The Fediverse has more of an anti-AI bias than it has a pro-piracy bias.
Hmm I still think we're saying different things. Enabling piracy for consumers and rejecting it for big business come from the same beliefs. It's not about piracy itself or hating AI more than liking piracy. It's not about piracy at all but who is allowed to use it. It's about content being controlled by the public, and not corporations. I think.
-
I'm on .world, and I'd happily throw all the billionaires into an industrial shredder.
Let the record note that Scott_of_the_Artic is an outlier and a comrade yet remains statistically a minority
-
Hmm I still think we're saying different things. Enabling piracy for consumers and rejecting it for big business come from the same beliefs. It's not about piracy itself or hating AI more than liking piracy. It's not about piracy at all but who is allowed to use it. It's about content being controlled by the public, and not corporations. I think.
It sounds to me like you're just saying why your support for piracy is limited in this case. You're saying "piracy's okay, but not when those companies use it for those reasons."
Having rules about who is "allowed" to copy stuff and for what reasons is, in a nutshell, copyright law.
-
I'm on .world, and I'd happily throw all the billionaires into an industrial shredder.
You and me Scott! We'll take on the .world!
-
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Those reasons you give are still hatred of AI because of those results (job loss, etc). How is that not hatred of AI?
I agree with Hawke, I think people are against the use of technology in such a way that it exploits workers and customers, not fundamentally against the technology itself.
Basically like the Luddites - they smashed weaving looms, not because the technology was fundamentally bad, but because it was being used by capitalists to worsen working conditions and destroy livelihoods.
-
It’s not hatred of AI there.
I still disagree, but let me create another hypothetical example that may highlight where we might disagreement further:
What if Deep Learning (not Gen AI) was used in missile guidance systems specifically to aim toward "people shaped targets"? Would the hate be for AI or just for missiles? If missiles is your answer, where is the distinction in your mind between that and the self-driving cars example?
GenAI being used in missile guidance makes zero sense - the technology is not applicable there, because you need precision and reliability. Normal AI, sure.
-
Unfortunately it's just harder to be a Star Wars fan since Disney bought it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]As opposed to the easy time to be a fan, like during the "Meesa propose..." speech.
-
I think it's both. Some people dislike all AI because of generative AI like LLM's, but many people seem to care about making the distinction between generative AI and traditional ML.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I suspect a lot of the former group is don't that out of ignorance or forgetfulness - I do it all the time, because I often assume people are talking about GenAI. Which is probably a reasonable assumption about 90% of the time these days, but it is better to be clear about it.
Also, a friend who has a background in AI draws a distinction between ML and non-generative AI: ML is basically tools for overpowered statistical analysis and pattern finding, AI is attempts to partially recreate aspects of intelligence, and can include evolutionary algorithms and stuff. Still not sure I see the distinction (and there is overlap), but they're way more informed than me..
-
It sounds to me like you're just saying why your support for piracy is limited in this case. You're saying "piracy's okay, but not when those companies use it for those reasons."
Having rules about who is "allowed" to copy stuff and for what reasons is, in a nutshell, copyright law.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not sure I understand your argument, nor am I talking about myself personally, but folks I've seen on my instance who do. Actually I'm just a privacy and Flying Spaghetti Monster piracy advocate
One who photographs a painting from a Walmart and prints it in their living room, and also boycotts a News outlet who underpays their employees is not more anti-news than pro-theft. They are both boycotts equally against capitalism.
I'm sure there are also many folks who pirate immorally, like from smaller artists, or because they're broke. But pro-piracy usually means in the boycott sense.
-
Not sure I understand your argument, nor am I talking about myself personally, but folks I've seen on my instance who do. Actually I'm just a privacy and Flying Spaghetti Monster piracy advocate
One who photographs a painting from a Walmart and prints it in their living room, and also boycotts a News outlet who underpays their employees is not more anti-news than pro-theft. They are both boycotts equally against capitalism.
I'm sure there are also many folks who pirate immorally, like from smaller artists, or because they're broke. But pro-piracy usually means in the boycott sense.
The original comment I'm responding to listed two biases of the Fediverse's population:
- AI bad
- Piracy ok
All that I'm saying - and that you are, as far as I can tell, agreeing with - is that in the situation where "piracy ok" and "AI bad" overlap the "AI bad" bias prevails. People who were cheering piracy moments earlier stop and go "no, not like that."
As far as I can see, you're saying the same thing. You're just trying to justify why you're saying "no, not like that." Which is not relevant to the basic point I was making.
-
If you get all your info from Lemmy you'd probably think that AI is a worthless hype bubble that can't do anything right and will collapse and go away in a few years.
wrote last edited by [email protected]At this point I'd believe AGI already exists and "AI Slop" is just a psy-opp.
Like how do people reconcile recognizing how AI is negatively effecting society but denying that it could get exponentially more harmful?
AI-agents (not AGI) will change cyberwarfare like nuclear weapons changed convetional warfare.
Meanwhile true AGI almost certainly presents an existential threat to humanity. If for no other reason than our own laziness.
-
Also half of all lemmings are transgender. No idea why.
Woke and DEI, is why. Now put the damn socks on and get to work. Once Arch is installed, you may indulge in one Blåhaj
-
The original comment I'm responding to listed two biases of the Fediverse's population:
- AI bad
- Piracy ok
All that I'm saying - and that you are, as far as I can tell, agreeing with - is that in the situation where "piracy ok" and "AI bad" overlap the "AI bad" bias prevails. People who were cheering piracy moments earlier stop and go "no, not like that."
As far as I can see, you're saying the same thing. You're just trying to justify why you're saying "no, not like that." Which is not relevant to the basic point I was making.
I think your argument attempts to highlight a hypocrisy where mine highlights consistency but I may be misunderstanding.
-
As opposed to the easy time to be a fan, like during the "Meesa propose..." speech.
Or when George Lucas couldn't keep his grubby mitts off the movies and kept shoving stupid crap into them. Yeah. It's always been hard.
-
GenAI being used in missile guidance makes zero sense - the technology is not applicable there, because you need precision and reliability. Normal AI, sure.
GenAI being used in missile guidance makes zero sense - the technology is not applicable there, because you need precision and reliability. Normal AI, sure.
I specifically said "not Gen AI".
