[Always has been.png]

Dead internet is only a theory. Like gravity.

Sometimes I forget how brutal the early 2000s were.

Having a number of different editors allows manipulating the discussion and concensus protections built into Wikipedia.

Depending on the topic, it may not be necessary. A complimentary article about a new technology product or company founder just takes a few press releases that get picked up. Manipulating world events and leaders requires more coordination.

Although manipulating the sources cited is a great way to manipulate Wikipedia. You have to recruit 10-40 people to act as a group of editors to manufacture concensus across topics. Or you can just create a website or series of press releases.

“Hey, this small-town museum has an article about a historical event. It must be true. Link it at the bottom.” Or “well, this local newspaper article says it is happened, so into the article it goes.”

Even more effective, especially for political groups, is just publish dozens of supportive articles, while miring competing articles in edit wars and the bureaucracy that comes with it. For sources, just cite expert books that are favorable. It’s not easy, but hiring or recruiting 10-40 editors is trivial for political entities.

We honestly need to end the myth that Wikipedia is some impenetrable white tower. It can and has been infiltrated by corporate and political groups, and even creative vandals.

It’s the most valuable digital property in the world. You think people break into the Louvre but can’t touch Wikipedia?

I had the same reaction! I had to log into the screwy web portal and test it to realize it was something else entirely.

If they built out a Mastodon network with government support, then it would.

Uh, Mastodon exists?

So the people killing women for partially uncovering their hair are the good guys?

The people murdering thousands of protestors are the good guys?

So the religious fundamentalists imposing doctrine at gunpoint are the good guys?

I think the people protesting for their lives and freedoms are the good guys, but that’s just me.

I actually have no recollection of why some records had the big holes in the first place. Were there players with a chonky spindle in the middle?

Just to be clear, companies know that LLMs are categorically bad at giving life advice/ emotional guidance. They also know that personal decision making is the most common use of the software. They could easily have guardrails in place to prevent it from doing that.

They will never do that.

This is by design. They want people to develop pseudo-emotional bonds with the software, and to trust the judgment in matters of life guidance. In the next year or so, some LLM projects will become profitable for the first time as advertisers flock to the platforms. Injecting ads into conversations with a trusted confidant is the goal. Incluencing human behaviour is the goal.

By 2028, we will be reading about “ChatGPT told teen to drink Pepsi until she went into a sugar coma.”

The headline also does not say the same thing that the post claims!

Headline: “15% of content” --> every 6th or 7th post or comment is a corporate troll

Article: “15% of subreddits contain” --> the vast majority of subreddits contain no troll content

Actual study: [file not found]

I also cannot find any Pew research study resembling the one described. The link is a 2017 report that doesn’t mention reddit.

It’s called a jazz bar and they’re not that great.

I’ve shared several peer reviewed papers that show the opposite.

Science doesn’t take anecdotes.

Most food pantries and beds for the homeless in the USA are faith based. Here are the scientific papers that show it.

A descriptive analysis of food pantries in twelve American states: hours of operation, faith-based affiliation, and location

Assessing the Faith-Based Response to Homelessness in America: Findings from Eleven Cities

People claim money actually exists, too. It’s not an inherent property of human existence. It’s just an organizing principle that helps us coordinate resources.

It would be stupid if the main argument we had about money was whether on not it “exists.” By “stupid” I mean that it is counterproductive to the goals of bettering humanity. We don’t get anywhere with that discussion. Instead, we talk about how we should use use money as a tool to better organize our society. We talk about equity and advancement and poverty.

It’s the same with religion. It’s been well studied that religion offers social benefits:

Association between spirituality/religiousness and quality of life 2021

Assessing the Faith-Based Response to Homelessness in America

63.2% food pantries are identified as being faith-based food pantries

With this being Lemmy, I don’t have to highlight the negative consequences of religion.

The point is that we should be advancing beyond the kindergarten level discussion about what’s real and what’s make-believe. Intelligent people should instead be engaging on how we can ensure religious beliefs are fostering social trust, or how to recognize and combat religious extremism.

Why make an ideological argument against ideologies?

Science also led to eugenics and atom bombs. Religion also builds food pantries, wells, and hospitals. It is not about the tool but how we choose to use it.

What a stupid premise to begin with. God is at least as real as money, love, or America.

All of these are useful ideas to describe things that cannot be “proven” with objective evidence, but still have a meaningful impact on the reality of our lives.

Arguing about the objective existence of God is a red herring. I wish we spent as much time talking about the very well studied social benefits and harms of religion. Then we could start talking about meaningful reforms.