The subjects that you can't even bring up without getting downvoted, banned, fired, expelled, cancelled etc.
- "Why doesn't this site have more in common with reddit, which it's more or less a clone of?"
- Can't bring up Trans people existing (without a weirdo downvoting you, of course)
- Can't be critical of... a certain religion without getting jumped by keyboard warriors and called a Genocide Supporter
- Don't even get me started on whatever the heck is with the Hexbear folks...
- Lemmy is, at times, a bit of an echo chamber
The bit on Hexbear is that they are Marxists and Anarchists, which can draw ire from liberals.
All drugs should be legal and regulated.
Is it worth it, drug warriors? All the unnecessary deaths at the hands of police/gangs/cartels and unregulated drugs of a unknown potency? Was it worth sacrificing all our civil liberties on the vain funeral pyre that is the United States of America?
When humanity is victorious in the drug war and all drugs are legalized, will drug users criminalize sobriety?
Will people high as fuck demand everyone to piss in a plastic cup to make sure they are high?
Will drug users ruin sober people's lives with felonies and time in prison with hardened criminals?
Will drug users dissolve civil liberties and prop up a bipartisan police state that gives cops a license to kill?
NO!
Who would want to do that to someone? To a fellow human for doing what they want with their own bodies? Prohibitionists... that's who. And we are not them
Nothing lasts forever drug warriors. Tick tock. We will be free one day, and you will wail and moan and your cries will fall on deaf ears.
Get fucked prohibitionists. Feel fortunate we want justice, not retribution.
Now playing The War on Drugs - Red Eyes
AOC letting her outdoor cats stack rocks, which is supposedly what the unions told her to do
AOC voting to protect the rail corporation from the union strike.
Digital piracy not being an immoral crime (or crime at all) and not making one a horrible person.
For what it's worth, I've personally never found it controversial to talk about in person. And this includes in countries where it's a prosecuted crime.
Copying is not theft, artificial scarcity in the digital world is a tragedy, and I intentionally avoid paying middle-men distributors (like streaming services and record companies) for art.
"I've asked ChatGPT about xyz" , and "how to use chatGPT for xyz" in my experience gets me downvotes fast.
People are quick to presume you have no ability to fact check anything and that you will be following its advice blindly, (which mind you - you were never asking for in the first place) instead of asking a human, ever ( for example about medical conditions but not limited to that topic). People presume you are trying to eliminate the human factor out of the equation completely and are quick to remind you of your sins, god forbid you ever use a chatbot to test ideas, ask for a summary on a topic so you can expand your research later or get creative with it in any way. If you do, most people don't like to know.
I think the bigger problem is that each answer it gives basically destroys a forest
Yeah, that's a big one. Search engines had been getting worse, but the decline was turbocharged after all the LLM hype. Search engines are practically unusable now
To be fair: "For each answer it gives", nah. You can run a model on your home computer even. It might not be so bad if we just had an established model and asked it questions.
The "forest destroying" is really in training those models.
Of course at this point I guess it's just semantics, because as long as it gets used, those companies are gonna be non-stop training those stupid models until they've created a barren wasteland and there's nothing left....
So yeah, overall pretty destructive and it sucks...
Training a model takes more power than what? Generating a single poem? Using it to generate an entire 4th grade class's essays? To answer all questions in Hawaii for 6th months? What is the scale? The break even point for training is far far less than total usage.
Have you ever used one locally? Depending on your hardware it's anywhere between glacially to a morgue's AC slow. To the average person on the average computer it is nearly unusable, relative to the instant gratification of the web interface.
That gives you a sense of the resources required to do the task at all, but it doesn't scale linearly. 2 computers aren't twice as fast as one. It's logarithmic. With diminishly returns. In the end, this means one 100 word response uses the equivalent of 3 bottles of water.
How many queries are made per hour? How does that scale over time with increased usage of the same model? More than training a model. A lot more.
Yeah you make a really good point there! I was perhaps thinking too simplistically and scaling from my personal experience with playing around on my home machine.
Although realistically, it seems the situation is pretty bad because freaky-giant-mega-computers are both training models AND answering countless silly queries per second. So at scale it sucks all around.
Minus the terrible fad-device-cycle manufacturing aspect, if they're really sticking to their guns on pushing this LLM madness, do you think this wave of onboard "Ai chips" will make any impact on lessening natural resource usage at scale?
(Also offtopic but I wonder how much a sweet juicy exploit target these "ai modules" will turn out to be.)
It's really opaque. We won't know the environmental impact right away. Part of the larger problem is, while folks like you and I make a sizable impact, it's nothing compared to enterprise usage at scale. Every website, app, and operating system with an AI button makes it even easier for users to interface with AI leading to more queries. Not only that, those queries and responses are collected and used to further make queries.
Should the usage of AI stay stable, improved hardware would decrease carbon output. We should be cautious coming to that conclusion. What is more likely is that increased efficiency will lead to increased usage. Perhaps at an accelerated rate with the anticipation of even more technological breakthroughs down the line.
All that said, I'm really not a doomer. It's important we all consider the cost of our choices. The way I see it, we are all going to die eventually. I'm old enough it will probably be from something else.
Okay that's a valid point and one so far nobody comes up with. Congrats
Social Justice Warriors forcing their agenda and worldview into languages, movies, books, and games, and cancelling everyone who did something regrettable in the past.
If anything, that was just an answer to the topic question, I don't have anything about anyone's human rights. Ah, by the way, I forgot! Of course! What I said also includes the necessity to explicitly state your words aren't deliberately harmful if they can be seen as such by someone. (Again, it's just an answer to the topic, I don't bear any harmful intentions to anyone.)
Sure. What happened to Alec Holowka is a pretty blunt and cruel example.
I'm not a huge fan of cancel culture either, but I've not paid a cent to any artists' work that I love in my whole life, so I feel I can justify my position by holding up my hands and saying "hey, I don't fund their lifestyle. Never have, never will."
Well, if you actually ever support someone, and they appear to be a bad person, you should know you paid them for their art style adding to not knowing they were a bad person, so you're not actually guilty. Also, even that person deserves a possibility to become better and start over, and thus, they shouldn't be cancelled. That's what we both know, am I right?
well then its all been worth it
