World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Huh.
considers
I'm still a little dubious that we're at the point that it makes a lot of sense to dump a lot of people into AI applications. Like, yes, please put as many people as possible on the core research, the kind of thing that people at, say, Nvidia or Google are doing. Figure out how to train a model more-efficiently
that'd be great. Fundamental work towards AGI? Please. New data structures for machine learning other than multilayer neural nets? That'd be great, all important research areas. But "writing programs that make use of existing AI systems and utilizing existing AI systems day-to-day"...the problem I have is that this is early, and the thing is in a state of rapid change. We're still knocking out low-hanging fruit, solving problems. You build a workflow that uses some model that exists today, and even if the model continues to be available, the limitations and workarounds for a model twelve months later may be quite different. I'd want that to stabilize before shifting a lot of people into using models, so they aren't having to re-learn a lot of stuff.
Like, Stable Diffusion 1.5 was released in late 2022. The problems that you'd see with that model and the prompting techniques to deal with it and work around limitations are very much not the same problems and limitations that exist for Flux 2 in 2026. Stable Diffusion supports token weighting; Flux does not. Stable Diffusion 1.5 performed poorly with English sentences, wanted a list of tokens; Flux does not. Stable Diffusion 1.5 had problems with fingers; Flux 2 does not. If you spend time getting someone to learn how to operate a diffusion model of 2026, is that skillset going to be similarly relatively-obsolete in another three years? Because if so, the student has to be providing an enormously high return-on-educational-investment over each of those three years to make it sensible to invest lots of time in making people expert in using that model.
I'm not saying that nobody should learn to use them, but I don't know if this is a "mobilize government and shift things ASAP across society" situation. And that's not because I don't think that AI is important. It's just because I think that from a usage standpoint, things are changing very quickly right now.
The best skills to teach someone, all else held equal, are the skills that they can use for their entire working life. I strongly suspect that the great bulk of LLM or diffusion model user skillset is going to be quite different in a relatively-short period of time, and I can very readily believe that we won't even be using the relatively-primitive "talk to a raw LLM" within a decade or two, have some considerably-more-sophisticated system moving towards AGI.
Yes, pretty much any skill has value. But lets say that you have the time and funds to teach a student, oh...statistics or how to use an LLM. Which is going to provide the best return on investment for the educational time? Because that's the real metric that matters.
And especially with the way schools are in England right now (cut funding, staff shortages, institutional instability, rising delinquent behaviour) schools need to prioritise what’s most important to teach now more than ever if you ask me.
To put even more context on that...when I first used a diffusion model, I was using the Automatic1111 frontend (well, okay, actually, I think it was a variant, but the first one I put much time into). I was using Stable Diffusion 1.5 or a derived model, can't recall.
Automatic1111 looks more-or-less like what I think most of the cloud service systems look like. At its core, you plug in a text prompt, you click a button, you get an image.
In 2026, I pretty much only use ComfyUI, which has a directed-acyclic-graph-based system akin to what some image processing software or visual-programming systems use. IIRC, GIMP uses a DAG internally these days, though doesn't directly expose it to users. searches Yeah, GEGL. And AFAICT, that's generally where the momentum is
it's not just me. That's a lot more powerful for making changes early in a workflow and re-running it, though more difficult to learn. And from a user standpoint, it looks wildly different.
I'm not saying that there was no transferable knowledge there. You're still working with a prompt somewhere in there. And the parameters that go to models are similar. But...you're talking about what is effectively a new syntax for prompts. A wildly different set of limitations to work around with those prompts. Shifting from a UI that is basically an "input a string and click go" to a visual programming language.
And...I haven't even listed some of the other of the changes. Uh, let's see. Stable Diffusion 1.5 supports negative prompts; one can list prompt terms that should not be presented in an image; Flux does not. Flux has some sort of natural-language-processing black magic that frequently lets one use English-language descriptions to do things like "Divide an image into five separated panels. The first panel should contain...". With SD 1.5, one would have to use some sort of plugin to subdivide an image and manually apply different prompts to different regions of an image.
Like, virtually the only thing in common between the two are sampler settings (and I use different sampler settings with each model) and the fact that both have a prompt, and there's virtually no overlap in prompt syntax. And that was over a timespan of three years. Well, less than three years.
I can believe that you can teach someone to directly use a model. I can believe that you can teach someone to write software that uses a model. I can believe that they can produce useful output using that model. But where I have some very real problems is buying into the idea that in 2026, we've reached the point where the user skillset is going to be long-lasting enough that this is where one is going to get the best return. It's like...I don't know, training people to fly the Wright Flyer en masse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer
You'd be right if you predicted in 1905 that heavier-than-air aircraft were going to be a very important thing in the future, but it was extremely early days then, and the control interface and the challenges that the pilot faces are probably going to be very different in short order.