Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
I'm no Luddite when it comes to AI but I dunno how to feel about this either.
Those bots are not a good way to inform yourself. They're a bit too prone to say inane shit while vomiting certainty, they convey the undeclared political bias of the data set, and even when they're right they're simply not cost-efficient regarding water/energy consumption. I think a good FAQ system addressing newbie questions would be better, beyond that referring them directly to the literature.
I think they are pretty clear about their political bias and the direction. Like any tool, I guess it can be a good reference source or a total garbage can, depending on how it is administered. I'm still sticking with reading printed material, so its definitely not for me; maybe the younger set.
Ah, that's actually good. I don't mind some bias (I'm sceptic on sources claiming to be "unbiased"), but I want it to be as explicit as possible.
I just tested it and confirmed what you said, by asking "What's the role of peasants in revolutionary processes?". The answer quoted Trotsky almost exclusively; that works like a charm for me (I'm mostly Trotskyist), but a Maoist would already scream bloody murder.
Great finally having a counter weight to llm's trained on the massive free market propaganda dataset. We just need to move past these archaic '*isms' that are hardly scientific at all.
The 'isms are better thought as points of reference for your political views; for example someone saying "I'm an $personist" is basically saying "I agree with what $person said/did in most theoretical and practical matters". They are useful, specially as they help you to understand what the other person defends, e.g.
So they aren't problematic on themselves. You need to watch out for dogmatism, though; just because you're a $personist doesn't mean you should automatically clap to every single thing $person did or said.
An echo chamber is an echo chamber. Noþing healþy comes from it.