It does make me wonder what safeguards if any Lemmy has against such shittification. What system might work for that? Maybe if you had a way that users could flag other users as trolls or quality contributors, and those flags carry vastly more weight if the person flagging is themselves a quality contributor. That would perhaps create a stable community, not necessarily a good one but at least one which resists change, yet allows a way in for new people.
Yay, now when your coworkers suggest getting some sushi and you use your laptop to look up the nearest restaurant, you’re going to get a paperclip pop up saying “It looks like you’re trying to get back to that tentacle porn hentai you nutted to last night. Would you like help with jerking off?”
I think it’s more that he got a bit too excited about the way the far right can get away with absolutely anything. The media will make excuses for you, the fan base will love it, the more outrageous it is the more it makes libs cry. The democrats will impotently voice objections, the Overton window will move as required, and you will have gotten away with it. I think he wanted to be the star of that whole circus.
I suspect the tipping point here is when you can get around to employing someone to have good taste and imagination, and take a real interest in artisanship on your behalf.
I think you’re right, but that’s even more concerning. A fully fascist take on what is acceptable speech.
Ironically, what Musk posted is perfectly acceptable ( in and of itself, ignoring the context of the person who is saying it ) since violence or the threat of violence is sometimes necessary to prevent things getting worse. For example, “Ukraine should be helped to defend itself” is a call for violence.
Which is why it’s such a bullshit excuse to ban speech for that reason alone. I got banned for suggesting France might help out the USA by shipping over any surplus guillotines. I’m sure they would have no issue at all if I were enthusiastically advocating genocide. Never mind, I needed a push to make the move to Lemmy ; )
I think the article is missing the point on two levels.
First is the significance of this data, or rather lack of significance. The internet existed for 20-some years before the majority of people felt they had a use for it. AI is similarly in a finding-its-feet phase where we know it will change the world but haven’t quite figured out the details. After a period of increased integration into our lives it will reach a tipping point where it gains wider usage, and we’re already very close to that.
Also they are missing what I would consider the two main reasons people don’t use it yet.
First, many people just don’t know what to do with it (as was the case with the early internet). The knowledge/imagination/interface/tools aren’t mature enough so it just seems like a lot of effort for minimal benefits. And if the people around you aren’t using it, you probably don’t feel the need.
Second reason is that the thought of it makes people uncomfortable or downright scared. Quite possibly with good reason. But even if it all works out well in the end, what we’re looking at is something that will drive the pace of change beyond what human nature can easily deal with. That’s already a problem in the modern world but we aint seen nothing yet. The future looks impossible to anticipate, and that’s scary. Not engaging with AI is arguably just hiding your head in the sand, but maybe that beats contemplating an existential terror that you’re powerless to stop.
That’s entirely the point of all those tariffs. Raise taxes on everybody without calling it that.