I have zero proof of this so take it for the musing it is, but the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine can be used to view articles that have been taken offline (sometimes for political reasons). The IA is a very accessible way to prove that once something is on the Internet, it’s out there forever. I used it in a recent post to show an Israeli newspaper article that argued Israel had a right to not just Palestine, but Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and other territories. It was taken off the newspaper’s website a few days later, but IA had it.

This may explain why no one is taking credit, and there are no demands. Or it could very well be another reason, including people just being assholes.

For a lot of wild animals, smiling can be a sign of aggression or unease. This is just an initiative to help humanity rediscover it’s natural roots by changing the meaning of smiles back.

I’m really hoping that’s an Office Space reference.

Probably fewer Goths sacking and pillaging. The modern ones are more artistic and morose as opposed to their violent historical namesakes.

The lower half of Americans (about 170ish million citizens) are sharing about 3% of the nation’s wealth. The general population needs to realize that neither major party has their wellbeing as a priority and stop championing one side or the other as the ones that will “fix the economy for average Americans”. That data clearly shows that exploiting the bulk of US citizens is a bilateral policy and has persisted for decades regardless of who holds majority.

Forbes just released a report that 1 in 3 Americans have maxed out their credit cards trying to deal with inflation.

Why did none of the other 45 countries on the Commission for Status of Women (CSW) put forth candidates? That’s not rhetorical, it’s an actual question. There’s obviously outrage and that’s understandable - Saudi Arabia is not a good guidepost for gender equality. It’s just strange that there were no other candidates and no dissent (and the article doesn’t give any explanation).

To people who aren’t sure if this should be illegal or what the big deal is: according to Harvard clinical psychiatrist and instructor Dr. Alok Kanojia (aka Dr. K from HealthyGamerGG), once non-consensual pornography (which deepfakes are classified as) is made public over half of people involved will have the urge to kill themselves. There’s also extreme risk of feeling depressed, angry, anxiety, etc. The analogy given is it’s like watching video the next day of yourself undergoing sex without consent as if you’d been drugged.

I’ll admit I used to look at celeb deepfakes, but once I saw that video I stopped immediately and avoid it as much as I possibly can. I believe porn can be done correctly with participant protection and respect. Regarding deepfakes/revenge porn though that statistic about suicidal ideation puts it outside of healthy or ethical. Obviously I can’t make that decision for others or purge the internet, but the fact that there’s such regular and extreme harm for the (what I now know are) victims of non-consensual porn makes it personally immoral. Not because of religion or society but because I want my entertainment to be at minimum consensual and hopefully fun and exciting, not killing people or ruining their happiness.

I get that people say this is the new normal, but it’s already resulted in trauma and will almost certainly continue to do so. Maybe even get worse as the deepfakes get more realistic.

Reddit doesn’t function like a real business (i.e. most of the work is unpaid volunteers, users and especially mods). There’s no genuine site-wide code of ethics beyond what will actually get them criminal charges. The written rules don’t matter - many moderators are unpaid bullies who permaban if their feelings are hurt and ignore questionable content they agree with. That system of banning users based on opinion kills discussion of “unapproved” views and sorts people into forums where their favorite opinions (and often outright hatreds) are popular. Loathe a particular race/gender/political ideology etc? Just find a subreddit where the mods agree and you’ll be fine saying some truly terrible stuff. Read the bloodthirsty posts on r/worldnews and tell me if the site-wide rules on not promoting violence or racism apply. For these reasons and more I don’t think anyone should be buying into their IPO because they aren’t a reliable business.

I don’t know if Lemmy is different because I’ve been here for less than a month, but at least here it feels like you can have different opinions and the worst that happens is you eat downvotes. Plus a lot of the really unethical takes are usually checked pretty hard in my (limited) experience by the users, which doesn’t happen when the only other voices are basically guaranteed to agree with you (a la most of Reddit).

The rest of this is just my Reddit survivor tale so if you don’t care stop here. I got invited to the IPO on the same week I got a 3-day site-wide ban after appealing a subreddit permaban for a fairly popular comment that the US should stop funding Israel and give the money to Ukraine (on a post about how the US is having trouble finding money for Ukraine). In those words, no hate speech or racism etc. When I asked why I was banned I got a 4-word insult as the only communication back. I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist, but it sure felt like I was being deliberately censored/punished for high-ish profile “dangerous” anti-Israeli opinion. May not be the case, but it was my first site-wide ban ever for a comment that broke no written rules.

My Reddit account is 13 years old and in 2023 I think I made about 100k karma, primarily with comments about history, education, and in one case a post about how awesome sperm whales are. My experience mirrors what I’ve read happens to others enough that Reddit has lost my participation (I’ve only posted 2x in the last 3 months, down from a few times daily) and my faith. I only go back to check on specialist communities (video game tips etc) and almost never participate anymore. Frankly I hope it either changes to allow for discussion or dies.

Wow, I never knew about that and it’s not just a small fee either. This 2020 article has it at 9,500 Euro/10,300 USD. “Some observers worry Nature’s €9500 publishing fee is so high that it threatens to divide authors into two tiers—those at wealthy institutions or with access to funds to pay, and everyone else.”

It’s already hard enough getting funding in some fields of science without that kind of added expense to put your data out there. Definitely sounds like you’re right to call them out.

It’s interesting reading quotes from that article like: “If you can’t verify what someone else has said at some other point, you’re just trusting to blind faith for artefacts that you can no longer read yourself.” and “After you’ve been dead for 100 years, are people going to be able to get access to the things you’ve worked on?”

It reminds me of problems the US military is having with refitting/upgrading old ICBMs. From the 2021 article, “Minuteman III Missiles Are Too Old to Upgrade Anymore, STRATCOM Chief Says”: "Where the drawings do exist, “they’re like six generations behind the industry standard,” he said, adding that there are also no technicians who fully understand them. “They’re not alive anymore.”

It’s sounds like the danger is we’ll be able to access the science (or just trust it’s true) but in some cases we’ll be unable to retrace our steps.

I agree. I’m talking about how quickly we’re going to have strategies in place to deal not how quickly we’ll have it all figured out. My guess is we have at best a year before it’s a huge issue, and I agree with your take that figuring out human vs. AI content etc. is going to be an ongoing thing. Perhaps until AI gets so good it ceases to matter as much because it will be functionally the same.

I 100% agree the genie is out of the bottle. People who want to walk back this change are not dealing with reality. AI and robotics are so valuable I very much doubt there’s even any point in talking about slowing it down. All that’s left now is to figure out how to use the good and deal with the bad - likely on a timeline of months to maybe one or two years.

This is Kyle Hill’s video on the predicted impact of AI-generated content on the internet, especially as it becomes more difficult to tell machine from human over text and video. He relays that experts say within a year huge portions of online content will be AI-generated. What do you guys think? Do you care that you may soon be having discussions/arguments with chatbots more often than not on popular platforms like Reddit, X, YouTube, etc?