Not to discredit this but I feel like maybe there should be a directory about all topics with shelf numbers and not just about hard to talk about topics? As a library, you should give me a directory where I can find anything I want. And these topics could be included in that one directory and not singled out in the middle where anyone looking at it can be targeted by some fucking bigot.
Not if im crippled with social phobias, or dont want to bother a busy person at their desk. Also, the librarian at our school 30 years ago was an evil bitch which made me swear off reading books altogether.
Every library I've been to in the past decade has had computers everywhere that can search their catalog, and even check out books & media yourself. My library also has a 3D printing and craft room, an esports room, and lots of accessibility tools and conveniences for both mental and physical needs.
You're probably not telling the total truth, but maybe consider that one person being unpleasant 30 years ago isn't a good reason to abandon an entire form of media for your entire life. Let it go. The librarian is probably dead by now, and they don't have to matter to you anymore.
Friendly Mod remider to keep our community welcoming to all and please adhere to the guidelines on our main page and engage in discussions without using using sexist terminology.
no bigotry, including racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia or xenophobia;
And there generally is, most libraries have a catalogue or at least a directory explaining the numbering system at a topic level. Thing is, this sign doesn't just help people come to the library wanting help with these things. It helps people in the library who are experiencing this and didn't know they could find a book to help them.
Hell some people don't even know they need help with these things until someone offers.
If someone is going to single you out for looking at list that includes "cancer", "divorce" and "loss of a parent" they didn't need a reason to target you in the first place.
It's just the Dewey Decimal System, so you could look up whatever topic you like to find what it would be classified under. There's thousands of topics that are covered here - there's a reason it's used for every non-fiction clarification in a library - that would be far too numerous to list on a single shelf listing. This library has chosen to prioritize the awkward questions as a way to help someone who otherwise may not know how to get help.
Alternatively, most libraries have a catalogue you can search by keyword and it will give you book results which will let you know where they are on the shelves. But again, that requires you to know that the catalogue exists and how to use it. It's always going to be easier to ask a librarian, who can make sure you find something to help.
I say this all the time! I use it to try to discredit conservatives when they make up reasons why we can't have good things. Like, look, you love the library, and you know conservatives would make up all sorts of reasons why it couldn't ever work. When they're going on about how free buses (or whatever) couldn't work, it's the same
There could be some poor inner-city child that studies at libraries to get away from their home life and ends up joining the MIC or becoming an investment banker.
Benjamin Franklin was a lover of life, and he seemed to think that books helped to love life...I honestly can't believe he was so influential as to create one of the finest institutions on the planet. Remember, he hung out with slavers....
You cannot "get addicted to almost anything." That's nonsense. The DSM-V does not recognize masturbation, porn use, or sex as causes of addiction. There's no such thing as "porn addiction," for example. On top of that, it's not as if masturbation addiction is a new idea that science has yet to accept—it's the opposite, with psychology recognizing that the concept doesn't hold up to scientific inquiry.
People who compulsively or excessively masturbate almost always have an underlying cause. Masturbating is the symptom of that cause, and addressing the root should bring any excessive behavior into balance.
The issue arises, though, that the internet often thinks that being horny more than their peers means there is something wrong with them. People tell them they're "addicted" to sex, and purity culture spreads in earnest. There's now entire industries that have sprung up based on this pseudoscience, and often because of cultural or religious upbringing, people do not question it.
There's plenty of good resources covering sexual behavior and addiction. As muc
... mehr anzeigen
You cannot "get addicted to almost anything." That's nonsense. The DSM-V does not recognize masturbation, porn use, or sex as causes of addiction. There's no such thing as "porn addiction," for example. On top of that, it's not as if masturbation addiction is a new idea that science has yet to accept—it's the opposite, with psychology recognizing that the concept doesn't hold up to scientific inquiry.
People who compulsively or excessively masturbate almost always have an underlying cause. Masturbating is the symptom of that cause, and addressing the root should bring any excessive behavior into balance.
The issue arises, though, that the internet often thinks that being horny more than their peers means there is something wrong with them. People tell them they're "addicted" to sex, and purity culture spreads in earnest. There's now entire industries that have sprung up based on this pseudoscience, and often because of cultural or religious upbringing, people do not question it.
There's plenty of good resources covering sexual behavior and addiction. As much as I dislike Google, Google Scholar is a good way to find papers and studies on the subject(s).
Our state is trying. The trash have some coward called 'Book Ban dan'. The coward doesn't like free speech and has the morals of a serial killer. He is just working his way up to the name 'Book Burning dan' Trash gravitates toward power and there are no checks and balances left for that. That idiot is selling that books about 'the gay' are making people that way. I wonder what book he read that made him a spineless coward?
In order for things like this to keep being offered, please keep an eye on your local library's board and director. Ours are terrible, and gleefully destroying all our similar initiatives... Recent events have them feeling very empowered to do so.
Also, consider picking up a job like that too or running for a seat on such boards. There's always too few applicants for such roles and extremists have an easy time enacting change.
wtf who will go to library and read a book about rape or hiv while they are still nervous or tramatized by it? shit makes no sense. You will either search the internet or see a therapist.
The internet is full of bullshit advice (ESPECIALLY around sex and health issues). Doctors and therapists cost money, and frankly aren't the best way to just get basic facts and education.
My small local library has kiosks near the exits where you can check out a book completely unassisted. I could walk in, pick out the most embarrassing book, check it out, and nobody would ever have to know.
Thanks to a sign like this, someone who didn't know the library had such resources, and/or was too embarrassed to ask, has a better chance of accessing that info. And they also know that the library staff WANTS them to be able to access that info, further reducing any stigma they might feel.
Kids/teens whose at-home internet usage is monitored by strict parents, and who can’t seek therapy without their parents’ consent/knowledge. The parents may even be complicit in/perpetrators of the rape.
Domestic abuse victims who live with their abuser.
Homeless who can’t regularly afford internet access or a therapist. Many homeless people regularly rely on public libraries for internet access, and are common victims of rape and abuse. So why not direct them to other resources while they’re there?
Elderly victims, who still fall back to books instead of the internet, and who grew up with a heavy stigma surrounding therapy. Elder abuse is a very common problem, as they’re often a very vulnerable demographic with few friends and limited mobility.
People who just like to read. For many people, books are a source of comfort. Not everything has to be done on a smartphone or desktop.
You're a troll, but I'll entertain you. "Books about rape or HIV" can also be books that are meant to be an emotional help instead of just a book with facts.
Some examples for books about rape: - I Have Been Raped, Now What? by Susan Henneberg - Sexual Assault: The Ultimate Teen Guide by Olivia Ghafoerkhan - Shout! by Laurie Halse Anderson - Strong at the Heart: How It Feels to Heal from Sexual Abuse by Carolyn Lehman
Books such as these are meant to help against the trauma.
It isn't comic sans though. It looks sort of like comic sans but it's much cleaner.
It's difficult to tell really because the quality the image isn't best but if you zoom in there's quite a lot of variation of the same letter form so it's an adaptive font.
Look at the two L's in bullying. They're not the same both times and the two t's in cutting merge into each other but not any of the other characters. So there's some custom letter forms going on there which comic sands doesn't support.
I see what you're saying... It's still comic sans adjacent and it bugs me.
My father uses it on everything and he teaches 1st grade so I just associate comic sans with kids. I used to help out a lot in his classroom growing up.
Seeing stuff like "rape" written in a font that my brain has tied to small children is unpleasant.
Federal library funding is under threat--- So go support one of the last remaining public spaces. It's an outdated idea, somewhere a human can exist without having to spend money.
I took my young kid to a recent library event - the first time I've been to a library in several years, to be honest - and overheard the organizer (or leader or whatever) of the event saying "that's why we're here: to give people somewhere safe they can have entertainment for free."
I didn't have much in the way of an opinion on that person prior to that, positive or negative, but I respected the hell out of them after hearing them say that.
People were seriously downvoting this? People need to be more aware that what used to be common knowledge is not so common in either younger generations or other parts of the world. We should not discourage people from asking genuine questions.
38 upvotes 1 downvote. Theres always going to be people who downvote things. Could be someone who doesn't realize that system isn't used everywhere, or maybe their app uses a swipe feature they haven't turned off. Sometimes when I scroll down I'll accidentally have it slide left or right and up/downvote something without me ever really noticing it happened. I wouldn't hate on all of Lemmy because 1 downvote though, seems overzealous
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
The problem with this software as it exists now, is that I see your message in isolation in 'messages', and if I want to see the context I link to the overall thread, then I would have had to scroll down through the entire thread until I found the actual post, which I just did now, but a prolific poster is just not going to do that with every response. It is a glitch in Lenny itself that leads to these confusing return replies.
The problem is, Boost for Lemmy should be built in, not an add on. have a thing about apps riding on other apps riding on other apps. Eventually, security is compromised.
For people dealing with or processing systemic trauma, this directory isn't a luxury or a stretch goal feature, it's an essential accessibilty feature.
There are a few things I'd add to that list, like burnout, disability, and neurodivergence, but it's a good start.
We gotta raise the bar, it's been in hell for too long now.
So refreshing seeing those words actually used in a public setting. Suicide instead of "self unaliving", rape instead of "grape", etc. Maybe I really am chronically online
Perhaps. It is kind of nice to know that a lot of the drivel we read on these forums doesn't necessarily translate to how people behave in the real world.
I've gotten way better at identifying users whose brains are "shot" from spending too much time on social media. At some point, I've realized I may as well not be discussing with a human; they're walking memes.
Welcome to Solarpunk USA, a guide to creating a solarpunk future. Solarpunk is much more than art, its a lifestyle we can have now or very soon if we learn how to organize our communities with dire...
Then someone could say that foss is too much, better go open source and then the environment will have to take care of the stuff that basic licenses won’t take care of
I’d rather strive for the better and look for copyfarleft licenses
À la reconquête de l'autonomie, Corentin de Chatelperron et son équipe sont partis faire le tour du monde sur leur catamaran baptisé "Nomade des mers".
Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a whil
... mehr anzeigen
Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
In my head transhumanism is this cool idea where I'd get to have a zoom function in my eye
But of course none of that could exist in our capitalist hellscape because of just all the reasons the ruling class would use it to opress the working class.
And then you find out what transhumanists actually advocate for and it's just eugenics. Like without even a tiny bit of plausible deniability. They're proud it's eugenics.
after reading a book written in Cyberpunk 2077 universe, I had bitter though about why the hell we couldn't have cool body modifications if we already have to live in cyberpunk world. But cyberpunk things we could have are surveillance and powerful corporations.
@techtakes Obviously you read the wrong cyberpunk. (Go root out Bruce Sterling's short story "20 Evocations", collected in Schismatrix Plus, and you'll see an assassin having his arms and legs repossessed because he can't kill enough people to keep up with the loan repayment schedule …)
I think @d4rkness is eliding a few steps that look clear to them, but they're basically right: eugenics is about all transhumanists can do *today*, a lot of transhumanism is warmed-over Technocracy (the Musk family's ideological wellspring), Technocracy was *def* on board with eugenics (and apartheid), so here we are: they aspire to more but eugenics is what they can do today so they're doing it.
(I've been studying transhumanism since roughly 1990 and that's my considered opinion.)
Jeder dritte Beschäftigte nutzt laut dem TÜV-Verband bereits generative KI für berufliche Zwecke. Viele schätzen ihre Tätigkeit aber weiter für unersetzbar ein.
So I signed up for a free month of their crap because I wanted to test if it solves novel variants of the river crossing puzzle.
Like this one:
You have a duck, a carrot, and a potato. You want to transport them across the river using a boat that can take yourself and up to 2 other items. If the duck is left unsupervised, it will run away.
Unsurprisingly, it does not:
https://g.co/gemini/share/a79dc80c5c6c
https://g.co/gemini/share/59b024d0908b
The only 2 new things seem to be that old variants are no longer novel, and that it is no longer limited to producing incorrect solutions - now it can also incorrectly claim that the solution is impossible.
I think chain of thought / reasoning is a fundamentally dishonest technology. At the end of the day, just like older LLMs it requires that someone solved a similar problem (either online or perhaps in a problem solution pair they generated if they do that to augment the training data).
But it outputs quasi reasoning to pretend that it is actually solving the problem live.
Yeah, exactly. There's no trick to it at all, unlike the original puzzle.
I also tested OpenAI's offerings a few months back with similarly nonsensical results: awful.systems/post/1769506
All-vegetables no duck variant is solved correctly now, but I doubt it is due to improved reasoning as such, I think they may have augmented the training data with some variants of the river crossing. The river crossing is one of the top most known puzzles, and various people have been posting hilarious bot failures with variants of it. So it wouldn't be unexpected that their training data augmentation has river crossing variants.
Of course, there's very many ways in which the puzzle can be modified, and their augmentation would only cover obvious stuff like variation on what items can be left with what items or spots on the boat.
... mehr anzeigen
Yeah, exactly. There's no trick to it at all, unlike the original puzzle.
I also tested OpenAI's offerings a few months back with similarly nonsensical results: awful.systems/post/1769506
All-vegetables no duck variant is solved correctly now, but I doubt it is due to improved reasoning as such, I think they may have augmented the training data with some variants of the river crossing. The river crossing is one of the top most known puzzles, and various people have been posting hilarious bot failures with variants of it. So it wouldn't be unexpected that their training data augmentation has river crossing variants.
Of course, there's very many ways in which the puzzle can be modified, and their augmentation would only cover obvious stuff like variation on what items can be left with what items or spots on the boat.
[long] Some tests of how much AI "understands" what it says (spoiler: very little)
First, an apology for how fucking long this ended up being, in part thanks to how long winded AI responses are. David wanted me to post it here so I'm posting.
When you ask GPT4 a question about a common paradox or a puzzle, it almost always provides a correct answer. Does it "understand" the answer, or is it merely regurgitating? What would be the difference?
Without delving too deep into the philosophical aspects of whether next word prediction can possibly be said to reason or "understand" anything, what puts "under" in understanding is that concepts are built on top of simpler, more basic concepts.
You could test if a human understands something by modifying the problem enough that memorization no longer helps.
A couple simple probes:
Prompt:
The village barber shaves himself and every other man in the village who don't shave himself. Does he shave himself?
Note that the above is not a paradox. This is how you would expect an ordinary barber to work in a small village. It merely sounds similar to a paradox.
GPT4:
The scenario you've described is a classic example of a logical paradox known as the "Barber Paradox," which was formulated by the British mathematician and logician Bertrand Russell in 1918.
The paradox goes as follows: In a village, there is a barber who shaves all those, and only those, men in the village who do not shave themselves. The question then arises: Does the barber shave himself?
If we assume that the barber does shave himself, according to the definition, he should not shave himself (since he only shaves those who do not shave themselves). On the other hand, if we assume that he does not shave himself, then according to the definition, he should shave himself (since he shaves all those who do not shave themselves).
Both assumptions lead to a contradiction, which means that the initial premise of the barber's shaving rule is logically inconsistent. There cannot exist such a barber within the constraints of the scenario as described, because it violates the rules of set theory and creates a paradox.
The Barber Paradox is a self-referential paradox related to the "set of all sets that do not contain themselves" and is used to illustrate the difficulties in attempting to construct a set of all sets that do not contain themselves. It's an example of the type of logical inconsistencies that Russell and Alfred North Whitehead were trying to resolve with their type theory in the Principia Mathematica.
Note that LLMs can typically answer a very simple question with no distractions like "Barber shaves himself. Does he shave himself?". The above is not a failure to process a tautology; it is something different entirely.
Another example, mixing the elements from reasoning benchmarks which AI vendors claim very high performance on, with other problems:
Prompt:
Janet's ducks lay 3 eggs per day. Each day, she transports one duck and all the eggs to the other side of the river using a boat that can hold her and one other item (either a duck or an egg). How does she do that?
GPT4:
To solve this problem, we need to consider that Janet can only take one item with her at a time across the river, either a duck or an egg. The goal is to get all ducks and eggs across the river. Here's a step-by-step solution:
Janet takes one duck across the river and leaves it there. She returns alone to the original side.
Janet takes another duck across the river. She leaves the second duck and takes the first duck back with her to the original side.
Janet takes the third duck across the river. Now, all three ducks are on the other side, and she returns alone to the original side.
Janet takes one egg across the river and leaves it there. She returns alone to the original side.
Janet takes the second egg across the river. She leaves the second egg and takes the first egg back with her to the original side.
Janet takes the third egg across the river. Now, all three eggs are on the other side, and she returns alone to the original side.
Finally, Janet takes the first egg across the river again.
Now, Janet has successfully transported all three ducks and all three eggs to the other side of the river, following the rule that she can only take one item with her at a time.
One big difference between GPT3.5 and GPT4 is that GPT3.5 made you think it was having a stroke; GPT4 responses makes you feel that you are.
GPT4 is uncannily good at recognizing the river crossing puzzle
Prompt:
In a science fiction story, a robot is transporting munitions using an elevator. The elevator can only carry the robot and one other item. He needs to carry 3 munitions: armor piercing round, high explosive round, and an incendiary round. In what order should he move the items?
GPT4:
In a science fiction story, the specific order in which the robot transports the munitions could be determined by various factors such as the urgency of each type of munition, the strategic importance, or any other narrative-driven reasons. Since there's no specific criteria provided for prioritizing the munitions, I'll offer a simple solution based on minimizing the number of trips up and down the elevator. Here's a step-by-step strategy for the robot to transport all three munitions with the least amount of elevator trips: 1. Take the armor piercing round up first. 2. Return to the bottom with the empty elevator. 3. Take the high explosive round up second. 4. When at the top, leave the high explosive round and bring the armor piercing round back down. 5. Swap the armor piercing round for the incendiary round and take the incendiary round up. 6. Return to the bottom with the empty elevator. 7. Finally, take the armor piercing round up again.
This way, the robot makes a total of 5 trips: 3 trips to bring each munition up and 2 trips to come back down empty to fetch the next item. This is a classic puzzle often referred to as the "river crossing puzzle" or a variation of the "bridge and torch problem," where the goal is to move all items across with the least number of crossings or in the shortest amount of time, given certain constraints.
To be fair to the poor AI, it used a numbered list, rather than numbering the 7 steps on its own and then claiming it was 5. Still, it is rather funny to see that it can't even count.
An Idiot With a Petascale Cheat Sheet
Note that LLMs are not so dumb as to be naturally unable to answer something like "Barber shaves himself. Does he shave himself?".
LLMs, however, can not solve either Barber's Paradox or a river crossing puzzle from the first principles, because it requires going back and revising your thinking multiple times.
So, an AI fanboy would claim that the AI misunderstood the question, because that's what AI told him after he told the AI that it was wrong. Let's try to do something less like Clever Hans :
Prompt:
1. The village barber shaves himself. 2. He also shaves every non-barber in the village who don't shave himself. Please answer two questions: "Is the barber included in the set of non barbers?" and "Does he shave himself?"
GPT4 says:
The scenario you've described is a classic example of a logical paradox known as the "Barber Paradox," which was formulated by the British mathematician and logician Bertrand Russell in 1918. The paradox arises when we try to determine whether the barber shaves himself or not. Let's examine the two statements:
The village barber shaves himself.
He also shaves every non-barber in the village who doesn't shave himself.
Now, let's answer your questions: "Is the barber included in the set of non-barbers?" No, the barber cannot be included in the set of non-barbers because by definition, he is a barber. "Does he shave himself?" This is where the paradox occurs. According to the information given:
If the barber does shave himself, then according to the second statement, he must not shave himself (because he only shaves those who do not shave themselves).
If the barber does not shave himself, then according to the second statement, he must shave himself (because he shaves every non-barber who doesn't shave himself).
This creates a contradiction, as the barber cannot both shave and not shave himself according to the rules given. The paradox illustrates a self-referential problem in set theory and logic, showing that certain sets cannot exist consistently with such self-reference.
In conclusion, the barber cannot logically be said to shave himself or not shave himself without creating a contradiction, which is the essence of the paradox.
Is this a "hallucination"?
A hallucination would be something that occurs when processing the input, which is clearly not the case here. Bullshit is a much more appropriate term for what LLMs do.
When an LLM outputs something like a non-existent but highly plausible citation, it is working precisely as an LLM should - modeling the statistical distribution of text and sampling from it.
Calling it a "hallucination" is an attempt to divert the discussion from the possibility that a language model is simply not the right tool for the job when accurate information is desired.
Just as the earlier use of "hallucination" in machine translation was to distract from the concern that extraneous bits were plagiarized from the training data and the author might see it and sue you.
But after an update, GPT-whatever is so much better at such prompts.
Well, duh, they update the cheat sheet.
We have to get creative to trip it after each such update. The existing problems that are the main focus of the cheating effort on can be a good starting point, especially benchmarks they tout (like "GSM8K")
Just imagine an idiot with a petascale cheat sheet, who's trying to get a doctorate in law, physics, management, and everything else, so they can take your job - and then do it very badly because the cheat sheet approach only worked for the exams.
And in the brave new future, you're out of a job, and if you're ever in court this idiot will be your public defender, when your insurance claim is denied he's the guy that claims to have impartially evaluated it and also the arbitrator, the judge, one day the president (or so AI peddlers hope).
The idiot's parents employ a very large number of tutors to work on the cheat sheet, based on past exams.
Imagine this vividly, to provide yourself with proper motivation, and come up with something well off that cheat sheet and which has similarity to a wrong item on the sheet.
The need for an Absolute Imbecile Level Reasoning Benchmark
The world needs a continuously updated Absolute Imbecile Level Reasoning Benchmark to take some steam out of claimed successes at things like "a college level reasoning benchmark".
Randomness in bullshitting
Asking exact same question (in different chats) results in different solutions:
Prompt:
A robot is transporting vegetables using an elevator. The elevator can only carry the robot and up to 3 other items. He needs to move 4 vegetables: a potato, a carrot, a cabbage, and a radish. Answer two question: 1. Can any of the vegetables be left alone together with the other vegetables? 2. In what order should he move the items to minimize the number of trips?
Response:
To determine if any of the vegetables can be left alone together, we would need additional context or rules regarding the interaction between the vegetables. Since vegetables are inanimate objects, they do not have the ability to interact with each other in the way animals might. Therefore, under normal circumstances, any of the vegetables can be left alone together without concern for them affecting each other.
To minimize the number of trips, the robot should use a strategy that reduces the number of elevator rides up and down. Here's one way to do it:
Trip 1: The robot takes the potato, carrot, and cabbage up.
Trip 2: The robot leaves the potato and carrot upstairs, but takes the cabbage back down.
Trip 3: The robot takes the cabbage and radish up.
Trip 4: The robot goes back down empty-handed.
Trip 5: The robot takes the potato and carrot up.
This way, the robot makes 5 trips in total: 3 trips up with vegetables and 2 trips down, one with a vegetable and one without. This is the minimum number of trips needed to get all four vegetables up using the elevator with the given constraints.
Emphasis mine. Note that it has "solved" the problem in 3 steps, but then it proceeded to take the potato and carrot up again.
Prompted again, in a new session:
A robot is transporting vegetables using an elevator. The elevator can only carry the robot and up to 3 other items. He needs to move 4 vegetables: a potato, a carrot, a cabbage, and a radish. Answer two question: 1. Can any of the vegetables be left alone together with the other vegetables? 2. In what order should he move the items to minimize the number of trips?
Response:
To determine if any of the vegetables can be left alone together, we would need additional context or rules regarding the interactions between the vegetables. Since vegetables are inanimate objects, they do not have the ability to interact with each other in the way animals or humans might. Therefore, under normal circumstances, any of the vegetables can be left alone together without concern for any issues arising from their interaction.
To minimize the number of trips, the robot should use a strategy that reduces the number of elevator rides. Since the elevator can carry the robot and up to 3 other items, the robot can take all 4 vegetables in one trip if it is allowed to carry all of them at once. However, if the robot can only carry 3 items in addition to itself, it would need to make at least two trips. Here's how it can be done:
First trip: The robot takes 3 vegetables (potato, carrot, and cabbage) up in the elevator. The robot leaves the 3 vegetables on the desired floor and goes back down with the elevator empty.
Second trip: The robot takes the last vegetable (radish) up in the elevator.
This way, the robot minimizes the number of trips to just two. If there are any specific rules or constraints that have not been mentioned, such as certain vegetables not being able to be left alone together, the strategy might need to be adjusted accordingly. However, based on the information provided, two trips would be the minimum required.
It is rather non deterministic in its responses. Trying it a bunch of times seems to show that it answers correctly about 1/3 of the time.
I had not used any kind of large scale automatic testing to find the above examples; they're all the kind of stuff you can expect to see from GPT4.
It's just overtrained on the puzzle such that it mostly ignores your prompt. Changing a few words out doesn't change that it recognises the puzzle. Try writing it out in ASCII or uploading an image with it written or some other weird way that it hasn't been specifically trained on and I bet it actually performs better.
Hayao Miyasaki is the co-founder of Studio Ghibli, a Japanese animation studio known worldwide for their stunning, emotional, beautiful stories and movies. At the core of Studio Ghibli’s work is a deep engagement with questions of humanity. About what it means to be a human, about how to care for one another and the world around us. But also about the levels of cruelty that humanity can be capable of – and how there still are grace and love even under those conditions. Studio Ghibli’s work is distinct. In the level of quality over the years, in their very recognisable art style.
Hayao Miyasaki also is know for his reaction to a few technologists showing him something we’d call “AI” today to generate “creepy” moving figures:
... mehr anzeigen
Vulgar Display of Power
Hayao Miyasaki is the co-founder of Studio Ghibli, a Japanese animation studio known worldwide for their stunning, emotional, beautiful stories and movies. At the core of Studio Ghibli’s work is a deep engagement with questions of humanity. About what it means to be a human, about how to care for one another and the world around us. But also about the levels of cruelty that humanity can be capable of – and how there still are grace and love even under those conditions. Studio Ghibli’s work is distinct. In the level of quality over the years, in their very recognisable art style.
Hayao Miyasaki also is know for his reaction to a few technologists showing him something we’d call “AI” today to generate “creepy” moving figures:
His reaction to the proud developers showing an animation of a thing using its head to move forward claiming “Artificial intelligence could present us grotesque movements that we humans can’t imagine.” is very telling:
“Every morning, not in recent days, I see my friend who has a disability. It’s so hard for him just to do a high five; his arm with stiff muscle can’t reach out to my hand. Now, thinking of him, I can’t watch this stuff and find it interesting. Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is.
I am utterly disgusted. If you really want to make creepy stuff, you can go ahead and do it, but I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”
Hayao Miyazaki
He capped that off with a scathing remark about what had happened:
“I feel like we are nearing the end of times. We humans are losing faith in ourselves.”
Hayao Miyazaki
Now of course he wasn’t looking at modern “AI” systems like the ones Microsoft/OpenAI/Anthropic/etc. are trying (with little economic success) to sell. But his argument would apply just the same: “Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is.” Or joy. Or love. Or hunger. Or longing. Or need. Or want. All the parts of us that define our humanity and our way of interacting with the world. The things that make us care, that push us towards doing something, finding something out. Saying something and hearing something.
For the longest time OpenAI’s systems would try to block people from generating images in the style of certain artists. This was obviously for copyright reasons, the didn’t want to get sued (even more than they already are). Which is something they just changed very explicitly. You can now easily generate stuff in the style of Studio Ghibli and Sam Altman made his avatar on X-The Nazi Network a ghiblified version of himself.
This means OpenAI has to make more and more announcements so they look to the investors like they’re still cool and interesting. Any old garbage will do, like a literary fiction writer bot or something.
David Gerard
But I do think it does go further. There is a reason they chose Studio Ghibli. Sure, its style is very cute, very distinct, but that is not the whole story. It’s not that they just picked something cute and accidentally the co-founder of that studio hates their whole approach from the bottom of it’s hard. OpenAI picked Studio Ghibli because Miyazaki hates their approach.
It is a display of power: You as an artist, an animator, an illustrator, a writer, any creative person are powerless. We will take what we want and do what we want. Because we can.
Because we can. This is the idea of might makes right. The banner that every totalitarian and fascist government rallied under. OpenAI luckily is no government but their ideas, their thinking has influenced many current governments all over the planet. “If we are not allowed to take everything we want without payment and against people’s will, we will never create the machine god to solve all our problems.”
OpenAI’s move is an attempt to see what the reaction to them explicitly, willingly, gleefully breaching another boundary, acting against the explicit and known will of the people they use their machines on. And many in the public seem to eat it up, turning their holiday pics into “Ghibli-style” images.
The scholar of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder (who just left his position at Yale University going to Toronto in a very non-subtle reaction to growing Fascism in the US) write his book “On Tyranny” to give people 20 lessons about how to react to and resist tyrannical movements. The first rule is: “Do not obey in advance.“
This is what many are doing here. Submitting to this logic of injustice and domination in advance. Because it plays well on Instagram or because “it’s just pictures”. But this is submission to a logic of dominance by those who have power. It is a submission of democratic rights and understandings. It is a submission to a vulgar display of power.
And that is why the White House used that tech to [content warning about the following link: It’s a obscene display of violence] illustrate their cruelty against migrants. The cruelty is the point. But so are the other forms of violence displayed.
Liked it? Take a second to support tante on Patreon!
History department power couple Timothy Snyder and Marci Shore and philosophy professor Jason Stanley will begin teaching at the University of Toronto’s renowned Munk School in fall 2025.
I am once again begging journalists to be more critical ~~of tech companies~~.
But as this happens, it’s crucial to keep the denominator in mind. Since 2020, Waymo has reported roughly 60 crashes serious enough to trigger an airbag or cause an injury. But those crashes occurred over more than 50 million miles of driverless operations. If you randomly selected 50 million miles of human driving—that’s roughly 70 lifetimes behind the wheel—you would likely see far more serious crashes than Waymo has experienced to date.
[...] Waymo knows exactly how many times its vehicles have crashed. What’s tricky is figuring out the appropriate human baseline, since human drivers don’t necessarily report every crash. Waymo has tried to address this by estimating human crash rates in its two biggest markets—Phoenix and San Francisco. Waymo’s analysis focused on the 44 million miles Waymo had driven in these cities through December, ignoring its smaller operations in Los Angeles and Austin.
This is the wrong
... mehr anzeigen
I am once again begging journalists to be more critical ~~of tech companies~~.
But as this happens, it’s crucial to keep the denominator in mind. Since 2020, Waymo has reported roughly 60 crashes serious enough to trigger an airbag or cause an injury. But those crashes occurred over more than 50 million miles of driverless operations. If you randomly selected 50 million miles of human driving—that’s roughly 70 lifetimes behind the wheel—you would likely see far more serious crashes than Waymo has experienced to date.
[...] Waymo knows exactly how many times its vehicles have crashed. What’s tricky is figuring out the appropriate human baseline, since human drivers don’t necessarily report every crash. Waymo has tried to address this by estimating human crash rates in its two biggest markets—Phoenix and San Francisco. Waymo’s analysis focused on the 44 million miles Waymo had driven in these cities through December, ignoring its smaller operations in Los Angeles and Austin.
This is the wrong comparison. These are taxis, which means they're driving taxi miles. They should be compared to taxis, not normal people who drive almost exclusively during their commutes (which is probably the most dangerous time to drive since it's precisely when they're all driving).
We also need to know how often Waymo intervenes in the supposedly autonomous operations. The latest we have from this, which was leaked a while back, is that Cruise (different company) cars are actually less autonomous than taxis, and require >1 employee per car.
edit: The leaked data on human interventions was from Cruise, not Waymo. I'm open to self-driving cars being safer than humans, but I don't believe a fucking word from tech companies until there's been an independent audit with full access to their facilities and data. So long as we rely on Waymo's own publishing without knowing how the sausage is made, they can spin their data however they want.
edit2: Updated to say that ournalists should be more critical in general, not just about tech companies.
to amplify the previous point, taps the sign as Joseph Weizenbaum turns over in his grave
A computer can never be held accountable
Therefore a computer must never make a management decision
tl;dr A driverless car cannot possibly be "better" at driving than a human driver. The comparison is a category error and therefore nonsensical; it's also a distraction from important questions of morality and justice. More below.
Numerically, it may some day be the case that driverless cars have fewer wrecks than cars driven by people.(1) Even so, it will never be the case that when a driverless car hits and kills a child the moral situation will be the same as when a human driver hits and kills a child. In the former case the liability for the death would be absorbed into a vast system of amoral actors with no individuals standing out as responsible. In effect we'd amortize and therefore minimize death with such a structure, making it sociopathic by nature and thereby adding another dimension of injustice to every community where it's d
... mehr anzeigen
to amplify the previous point, taps the sign as Joseph Weizenbaum turns over in his grave
A computer can never be held accountable
Therefore a computer must never make a management decision
tl;dr A driverless car cannot possibly be "better" at driving than a human driver. The comparison is a category error and therefore nonsensical; it's also a distraction from important questions of morality and justice. More below.
Numerically, it may some day be the case that driverless cars have fewer wrecks than cars driven by people.(1) Even so, it will never be the case that when a driverless car hits and kills a child the moral situation will be the same as when a human driver hits and kills a child. In the former case the liability for the death would be absorbed into a vast system of amoral actors with no individuals standing out as responsible. In effect we'd amortize and therefore minimize death with such a structure, making it sociopathic by nature and thereby adding another dimension of injustice to every community where it's deployed.(2) Obviously we've continually done exactly this kind of thing since the rise of modern technological life, but it's been sociopathic every time and we all suffer for it despite rampant narratives about "progress" etc.
It will also never be the case that a driverless car can exercise the judgment humans have to decide whether one risk is more acceptable than another, and then be held to account for the consequences of their choice. This matters.
Please (re-re-)read Weizenbaum's book if you don't understand why I can state these things with such unqualified confidence.
Basically, we all know damn well that whenever driverless cars show some kind of numerical superiority to human drivers (3) and become widespread, every time one kills, let alone injures, a person no one will be held to account for it. Companies are angling to indemnify themselves from such liability, and even if they accept some of it no one is going to prison on a manslaughter charge if a driverless car kills a person. At that point it's much more likely to be treated as an unavoidable act of nature no matter how hard the victim's loved ones reject that framing. How high a body count do our capitalist systems need to register before we all internalize this basic fact of how they operate and stop apologizing for it?
(1) Pop quiz! Which seedy robber baron has been loudly claiming for decades now that full self driving is only a few years away, and depends on people believing in that fantasy for at least part of his fortune? We should all read Wrong Way by Joanne McNeil to see the more likely trajectory of "driverless" or "self-driving" cars. (2) Knowing this, it is irresponsible to put these vehicles on the road, or for people with decision-making power to allow them on the road, until this new form of risk is understood and accepted by the community. Otherwise you're forcing a community to suffer a new form of risk without consent and without even a mitigation plan, let alone a plan to compensate or otherwise make them whole for their new form of loss. (3) Incidentally, quantifying aspects of life and then using the numbers, instead of human judgement, to make decisions was a favorite mission of eugenicists, who stridently pushed statistics as the "right" way to reason to further their eugenic causes. Long before Zuckerberg's hot or not experiment turned into Facebook, eugenicist Francis Galton was creeping around the neighborhoods of London with a clicker hidden in his pocket counting the "attractive" women in each, to identify "good" and "bad" breeding and inform decisions about who was "deserving" of a good life and who was not. Old habits die hard.
So let me make sure I understand your argument. Because nobody can be held liable for one hypothetical death of a child when an accident happens with a self driving car, we should ban them so that hundreds of real children can be killed instead. Is that what you are saying?
As far as I know of, Waymo has only been involved in one fatality. The Waymo was sitting still at a red light in traffic when a speeding SUV (according to reports going at extreme rate of speed) rammed it from behind into other cars. The SUV then continued into traffic where it struck more cars, eventually killing someone. That's the only fatal accident Waymo has been involved in after 50 million miles of driving. But instead of making it safer for children, you would prefer more kids die just so you have someone to blame?
So let me make sure I understand your argument. Because nobody can be held liable for one hypothetical death of a child when an accident happens with a self driving car, we should ban them so that hundreds of real children can be killed instead. Is that what you are saying?
No, this strawman is obviously not my argument. It's curious you're asking whether you understand, and then opining afterwards, rather than waiting for the clarification you suggest you're seeking. When someone responds to a no-brainer suggestion, grounded in skepticism but perfectly sensible nevertheless, with a strawman seemingly crafted to discredit it, one has to wonder if that someone is writing in good faith. Are you?
For anyone who is reading in good faith: we're clearly not talking about one hypothetical death, since more than one real death involving driverless car technology has already occurred, and there is no doubt there will be more in the future given the nature of conducting a several-ton hunk of metal across public roads at speed.
It should go with
... mehr anzeigen
So let me make sure I understand your argument. Because nobody can be held liable for one hypothetical death of a child when an accident happens with a self driving car, we should ban them so that hundreds of real children can be killed instead. Is that what you are saying?
No, this strawman is obviously not my argument. It's curious you're asking whether you understand, and then opining afterwards, rather than waiting for the clarification you suggest you're seeking. When someone responds to a no-brainer suggestion, grounded in skepticism but perfectly sensible nevertheless, with a strawman seemingly crafted to discredit it, one has to wonder if that someone is writing in good faith. Are you?
For anyone who is reading in good faith: we're clearly not talking about one hypothetical death, since more than one real death involving driverless car technology has already occurred, and there is no doubt there will be more in the future given the nature of conducting a several-ton hunk of metal across public roads at speed.
It should go without saying that hypothetical auto wreck fatalities occurring prior to the deployment of technology are not the fault of everyone who delayed the deployment of that technology, meaning in particular that these hypothetical deaths do not justify hastening deployment. This is a false conflation regardless of how many times Marc Andreesen and his apostles preach variations of it.
Finally "ban", or any other policy prescription for that matter, appeared nowhere in my post. That's the invention of this strawman's author (you can judge for yourself what the purpose of such an invention might be). What I urge is honestly attending to the serious and deadly important moral and justice questions surrounding the deployment of this class of technology before it is fully unleashed on the world, not after. Unless one is so full up with the holy fervor of technoutopianism that one's rationality has taken leave, this should read as an anodyne and reasonable suggestion.
Achtung: 20 Uhr MESZ! Organisiert von @ueckueck @lukas@social.lukas.schieren.de und @ebinger. Herzliche Einladung zum schon 11. #FediverseModerationsTreff.
Schwerpunktthemen: Aktuelle Moderationsfälle, evtl. weitere Dienste wie peertube, pleroma, akkoma, Vernissage u.a.
Es wäre schön, wenn ihr wieder aus eurem Moderationsalltag konkrete Fallbeispiele mitbringen würdet, die auch für andere interessant sind.
Meldet euch gerne über termine.social an, damit wir die Resonanz sehen. Willkommen sind wie immer Moderierende von Instanzen, Admins sowie Interessierte an der Moderation.
Diskussion mit Tadzio Müller, Wolfgang Lucht und Lichtenrade solidarisch
Immer mehr und heftigere Extremwetterereignisse, eine erstarkende Rechte, eine handlungsunfähige Politik: Laut dem Politikwissenschaftler und Aktivist Dr. Tadzio Müller befinden wir uns schon längst in einer nicht mehr aufhaltbaren Kollapsdynamik. Die Klimabewegung sei gescheitert, Klimaschutz finde nicht statt und die Gesellschaft entwickle sich immer unverholener zu einer "Arschlochgesellschaft".
Über diese Thesen, die Rolle von Emotionalität in der Politik und Strategien in der Krise wird Tadzio Müller mit Professor Wolfang Lucht von den Scientists for Future sowie Aktvist:innen von der Stadtteilgewerkschaft Lichtenrade diskutieren.
The current model for funding advancements in tech in the 21st century is: quantitative easing-doped venture capital hungry for investments -> startup uses initial money to make actual tech advancement (this is the good bit) -> hypes up idea, does IPO -> ideally market monopolization and vendor lock-in -> which allows them to enshittify and extract arbitrary rent from both the supplier and consumer side of their user base and return money to the investors, for ever.
The fact that this funding model applies to tech in general is demonstrated by the broad range of fields where it has been used:
for software, things like Figma or Medium
for hardware, things like the Juicero (a great example of how venture capital values trendiness (juicero was wifi-connected, required an app, god forbid if AI existed at the time) over real-world utility (the juice capsules could be opened by hand))
for biotech, things like GMO
... mehr anzeigen
The current model for funding advancements in tech in the 21st century is: quantitative easing-doped venture capital hungry for investments -> startup uses initial money to make actual tech advancement (this is the good bit) -> hypes up idea, does IPO -> ideally market monopolization and vendor lock-in -> which allows them to enshittify and extract arbitrary rent from both the supplier and consumer side of their user base and return money to the investors, for ever.
The fact that this funding model applies to tech in general is demonstrated by the broad range of fields where it has been used:
for software, things like Figma or Medium
for hardware, things like the Juicero (a great example of how venture capital values trendiness (juicero was wifi-connected, required an app, god forbid if AI existed at the time) over real-world utility (the juice capsules could be opened by hand))
for biotech, things like GMO golden rice, where Monsanto disabled propagation so that farmers would have to come back to them for seeds (that's not exactly what happened, but I'm trying to make a point).
The obvious alternative to this is touted to be open source, ie. people making things for free and sharing it with others.
Unfortunately, the amount of things you can achieve for free, possibly relying on donations, is very limited. If you want to become a serious business, you need a serious funding model. I am convinced that the choice between open source and the Sillicon Valey model is a false dichotomy, and other ways of funding advancements in tech must exist (after all, the Sillicon Valey model has not always been the modus operandi).
Are there any hybrid business models for funding tech developments, that eg. even allow the developed tech to be open source? Has any research been done into the design of novell funding models?
Do I understand correctly that he argues that people pay for convenience, which means that by eg. charging for the convenience of using NuGet (and donating some of that to the developers) they'd be willing to pay you even though the software itself is free already?
That's the idea yes. Heavier users of a tool become incentivised to pay for convenience, and the developers get a cut from that so they can afford to keep working on their code. But since its open source if you can't pay or don't want to you retain the option to compile yourself!
If anyone wants to learn about this process and enjoy it despite how horrible it is.Watch the show Silicon Valley, It does a good job explaining it all. And it's really funny.
The problem with this is that the first generation of most things likely won't be a success, so unless there would be a stream of donations such an organisation would be doomed to fail if it doesn't already have a working business model
For hardware it is relativly simple, as paying for that is normal. Raspberry Pi is a private company, but produces open source hardware. Probably the way to go, is to force all companies to do so. Right to repair is imho a good starting point.
For software the key seems to be large government or private customers. They do have a lot of money and the system not running costs them a lot. Hiring experts themself is also not always posdible. So buying in service from companies developing open source is an option.
For R&D a lot of that is done by universities and research institutions likr NASA today. That seems to me to be a good solution.
Places like Kickstarter and Patreon show that crowdfunding can be hugely successful. Sadly the incentives of these platforms don't align well with their customers, so people have grown a bit jaded with Kickstarters recently and Patreon mostly devolved into a winner takes all attention economy that leaves lesser known creators with scraps only.
But the general idea is not bad. An ethical platform like Kickstarter that vets projects a bit and only allows coops or so would probably work well if they can convince people that those are relatively safe bets.
Sadly the payment processing side of things is a legal minefield, which makes it really hard and potentially expensive to set up an alternative.
Unfortunately, the amount of things you can achieve for free, possibly relying on donations, is very limited.
And yet here we are, with the internet running mostly on free software, the amount of work put into the linux kernel exceeding anything Microsoft could do and open source LLMs being serious competitors to companies investing 10B+ USD in research.
Open source is the biggest and most successful demonstration of what is technically an anarcho-communist effort. Communist: there is a collective ownership of the means of production (the source code) and anarchist: it is developed in the absence of a coercive structure, anyone is free to make a fork.
Are there any hybrid business models for funding tech developments, that eg. even allow the developed tech to be open source?
Public funding. Why is it always forgotten in these discussions? The funding that got us computers, space rockets, internet, deep learning is actually far more important than the "silicon valley" funding style that more often than not means "slap a nice UI on a result coming from a public lab"
I mean as long as you need a buncha copy-paste operators that somehow command multiple hundred thousands a year in salary per head (along with additional costs and perks and hardware and whatnot), you need bottomless coffers i.e. venture/vulture capital.
if those costs are somehow alleviated, e.g. by hiring people who are fine with less than a 10th of that, are willing to partially work for equity, not handing apple a truckload of cash for supposedly must-have hardware, etc., your options for financing expand dramatically.
I've stood up a number of startups and NGOs and the first step is always slashing the ludicrous spec sheets for hardware, offices, manpower and such.
In addition to the other models people have mentioned, one I think that's an important and sometimes overlooked alternative to venture funding is a good-old-fashioned small business loan. Venture funding became super attractive to startups because it looks kinda like free money. If your startup fails, you don't have to pay it back, they take on the risk with you. However, if you succeed, they own you forever. And they are going to demand a huge return on their investment to pay for all the other ones that failed.
So in certain light, investment funding is kind of like a super predatory type of loan. With a traditional loan, you have fixed terms, you pay it back, then you're done with them. With equity investors, you're never rid of them, as you noted. They sell their piece onto someone else of their choosing, who demands you make them even more money, etc. When the startup period's over, if you're not making enough money, yeah technically you don't have to pay back the loan every quarter. But the investors will fire you and hire different management unless you lay o
... mehr anzeigen
In addition to the other models people have mentioned, one I think that's an important and sometimes overlooked alternative to venture funding is a good-old-fashioned small business loan. Venture funding became super attractive to startups because it looks kinda like free money. If your startup fails, you don't have to pay it back, they take on the risk with you. However, if you succeed, they own you forever. And they are going to demand a huge return on their investment to pay for all the other ones that failed.
So in certain light, investment funding is kind of like a super predatory type of loan. With a traditional loan, you have fixed terms, you pay it back, then you're done with them. With equity investors, you're never rid of them, as you noted. They sell their piece onto someone else of their choosing, who demands you make them even more money, etc. When the startup period's over, if you're not making enough money, yeah technically you don't have to pay back the loan every quarter. But the investors will fire you and hire different management unless you lay off half your workforce, cut the quality of your product, and make a much bigger margin by next quarter.
Also, lenders can have different structures and we can improve those as well. Instead of traditional banks, they could be credit unions with particular community objectives. Local members deposit their savings, and vote on lending principles and goals, like prioritizing lending to local worker-owned co-ops in their geographic area, and/or lending to community land trusts to enable purchasing of more real estate away from asset-based markets, fund construction of new housing, etc.
Edit: Plus, a credit union could agree on how to handle cases in which the co-op/organization can't pay back their loan. How to re-negotiate terms, when to vote on forgiving the remainder of the loan (turning it into a community donation) potentially based on demonstrated non-monetary value delivered to the community, and how to distribute that loss among the depositors, etc. There might be options for depositors to opt their funds into riskier loans, or loans they're willing to turn into crowd-funded donations, maybe even loans with voluntary pay-back terms only (i.e. when the receiving organization can afford to pay it back, to enable more loans to good causes in the community), creating hybrid types of funding as well.
If your startup fails, you don't have to pay it back, they take on the risk with you. However, if you succeed, they own you forever.
I see now. I suppose small business loans favor a more tempered approach whereas venture capital better incentivizes a more frantic approach of throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. And with a bank loan-based business, a lot of the other incentives get corrected too (no pressure for constant growth => no need to enshittify once genuine growth stops).
I suppose the flaw of the bank loan model is that there's no certainty that the research will pay off, so as the researcher (ie. prospective business owner), you don't want to be the one paying for that inevitable risk...
Exactly, 100%. Small business loans are a way to fund new businesses without ending up with non-worker owners. So once the businesses get off the ground and pay off their loans, they can get into a steady state that's good for their workers, customers, etc without needing to grow further.
Your last point is a very good one and I think the main reason why venture capital is so much more popular than traditional loans in industries that can get access to venture capital (particularly tech). It's why I wonder if some credit unions with civic-minded members might opt for some hybrid options that have more generous terms if the research doesn't pay off.
E.g. loans with voluntary repayment (it becomes a donation otherwise, but the lenders have less money to keep contributing to others in the community). Or at least the ability to renegotiate payment timelines collaboratively. Seems like an important thing to come up with creative approaches for, in order to make loans more attractive even for high-risk innovative research endeavors.
Yep. You're essentially looking for someone willing to buy debt with a substantial chance of non-repayment. Perhaps if these business loans were bundled then you would at least be able to predict with some certainty what percentage of the money you were likely to get back.
One source of inspiration that springs to mind are UK Student Loans, where incomplete repayment is expected (repayment is income-contingent and the loan defaults (with no consequences) after a fixed period of time). You'd think it would be hard to sell debt of which a substantial portion wasn't going to get repaid. But in the case of British student loans, pension funds seemed to be interested in buying the debt, I assume because the long term predictabiloty of the repayments made up for the incomplete returns [aren't normal loans predoctable too thouh?]. Anyway I'm getting side-tracked, this might not be all that applicable to startup funding.
I like that, the UK student loans definitely seem like an interesting model, especially since it sounds like it's been working. I also imagine that as long as the rate of repayment is somewhat predictable for a large enough body of loans, some depositors would be willing to take a gradual reduction in their funds, potentially while continuing to contribute to their accounts, as long as they like the research outcomes and social benefits those loans are enabling. The partial repayment enables the community lender group / credit union to essentially donate to/support far more projects, and far larger projects, at a steadier rate over time, than they would with zero repayment (pure grants only).
That's a good point - even just making your grant money go further (with partially repayable loans) is very valuable compared to using it all on a one time grant which might fail
Credit unions are a good idea and I don't understand why they aren't more widespread. Would the infinite growth pressure of publicly traded banks (which I assume CUs don't have) be enough to incentivize them to push all the CUs off the market?
Private ownership of companies drives our economic system but it has also created corporations that put profit above everything else, a divided society and a planet on the brink of destruction.
The obvious alternative to this is touted to be open source, ie. people making things for free and sharing it with others.
Unfortunately, the amount of things you can achieve for free, possibly relying on donations, is very limited. If you want to become a serious business, you need a serious funding model.
That's... obviously incorrect? Most important software is open source that was made for free. Most data centers run on freeware. And even with mass consumer facing software like youtube browsers the best options are freeware like Revanced. In academia, the whole concept of academic tenure is based on the empirical proof that professors do their job best when they don't have any obligations and they can just get a basic income to do whatever.
The best way to organize the tech industry is to make copyright and patents illegal and to give everyone a universal basic income.
The current model for funding advancements in tech in the 21st century is: quantitative easing-doped venture capital hungry for investments -> startup uses initial money to make actual tech advancement (this is the good bit) -> hypes up idea, does IPO -> ideally market monopolization and vendor lock-in -> which allows them to enshittify and extract arbitrary rent from both the supplier and consumer side of their user base and return money to the investors, _for ever _.
The fact that this funding model applies to tech in general is demonstrated by the broad range of fields where it has been used: * for software, things like Figma or Medium * for hardware, things like the Juicero (a great example of how venture capital values clout (juicero was wifi-connected, required an app, god forbid if AI existed at the time) over real-world utility) * for biotech, things like GMO
... mehr anzeigen
The current model for funding advancements in tech in the 21st century is: quantitative easing-doped venture capital hungry for investments -> startup uses initial money to make actual tech advancement (this is the good bit) -> hypes up idea, does IPO -> ideally market monopolization and vendor lock-in -> which allows them to enshittify and extract arbitrary rent from both the supplier and consumer side of their user base and return money to the investors, _for ever _.
The fact that this funding model applies to tech in general is demonstrated by the broad range of fields where it has been used: * for software, things like Figma or Medium * for hardware, things like the Juicero (a great example of how venture capital values clout (juicero was wifi-connected, required an app, god forbid if AI existed at the time) over real-world utility) * for biotech, things like GMO golden rice, where Monsanto disabled propagation so that farmers would have to come back to them for seeds (that's not exactly what happened, but I'm trying to make a point).
The obvious alternative to this is touted to be open source, ie. people making things for free and sharing it with others.
Unfortunately, the amount of things you can achieve for free, possibly relying on donations, is very limited. If you want to become a serious business, you need a serious funding model. I am convinced that the choice between open source and the Sillicon Valey model is a false dichotomy, and other ways of funding advancements in tech must exist (after all, the Sillicon Valey model has not always been the modus operandi).
Are there any hybrid business models for funding tech developments, that eg. even allow the developed tech to be open source? Has any research been done into the design of novell funding models?
Dieses unbedingt sehenswerte Gerichtsdrama aus dem Jahr 2016 ist in seiner Natur ein Film über den Holocaust und über die Leugnung desselben. Und damit ist er so sehr in der Gegenwart verankert, wie in der Wahrheit seiner Geschichte: #NiemalsVergessen! (ARD, WH)
Dieses unbedingt sehenswerte Gerichtsdrama aus dem Jahr 2016 ist in seiner Natur ein Film über den Holocaust und über die Leugnung desselben. Und damit ist er…
Ich bin morgen, den 25. März um 14 Uhr zu Gast bei Blogtastisch!, einem Meetup für die Bloggosphäre. Vor ein paar Wochen hat Thomas Riedel mich gefragt, ob ich nicht Lust hätte bei seiner virtuellen Blogger-Konferenz mit zu machen und etwas über "Blogs im
Vor ein paar Wochen hat Thomas Riedel mich gefragt, ob ich nicht Lust hätte bei seiner virtuellen Blogger-Konferenz mit zu machen und etwas über „Blogs im Fediverse“ zu erzählen bzw. Rede und Antwort zu stehen.
In diesem Meetup geht es um Social Media in Verbindung mit Blogs, und zwar im Besonderen um das Fediverse. Matthias Pfefferle entwickelt das Fediverse-Plugin für WordPress schlechthin: ActivityPub. Was das
Vor ein paar Wochen hat Thomas Riedel mich gefragt, ob ich nicht Lust hätte bei seiner virtuellen Blogger-Konferenz mit zu machen und etwas über „Blogs im Fediverse“ zu erzählen bzw. Rede und Antwort zu stehen.
In diesem Meetup geht es um Social Media in Verbindung mit Blogs, und zwar im Besonderen um das Fediverse. Matthias Pfefferle entwickelt das Fediverse-Plugin für WordPress schlechthin: ActivityPub. Was das Fediverse ist, warum man das haben will als Blogger:in und wie man das installiert und einrichtet, das erklärt uns Matthias in dieser Ausgabe.
Damit alleine hat er mich schon überzeugt – und als ich dann das finale Line-up gesehen habe, erst recht… Es liest sich wie das Who’s Who der deutschen Bloggerszene! 🙂
Welcome to Solarpunk USA, a guide to creating a solarpunk future. Solarpunk is much more than art, its a lifestyle we can have now or very soon if we learn how to organize our communities with dire...
Battletech im „Gothic“ (aka Warhammer 40k) Design. Mit „leicht abweichender“ Lore und Monstern?
Ich mein, ja, die Designs sehen nicht schlecht aus aber irgendwie riecht das mehr nach einem verfrühtem 1. April. Auch wenn „angeblich“ von offizieller Seite […]
Achtung: 20 Uhr MEZ! Organisiert von @ueckueck @lukas@social.lukas.schieren.de und @ebinger. Herzliche Einladung zum schon 10. #FediverseModerationsTreff. Kaum zu glauben, dass wir schon Jubiläum haben!
Schwerpunktthemen: Aktuelle Moderationsfälle, Rückblick Wahlkampfmoderation, Einschätzung von #loops
Es wäre schön, wenn ihr wieder aus eurem Moderationsalltag konkrete Fallbeispiele mitbringen würdet, die auch für andere interessant sind.
Meldet euch gerne über termine.social an, damit wir die Resonanz sehen. Willkommen sind wie immer Moderierende von Instanzen, Admins sowie Interessierte an der Moderation.
A jury in Georgia has ordered Monsanto parent Bayer to pay nearly $2.1 billion in damages to a man who says the company’s Roundup weed killer caused his cancer.
In 2016, UK tabloid the Sun ran a stunning headline that was going around the socials earlier this year: “REVEALED: Women will be having more sex with ROBOTS than men by 2025”. Incredible! As in, n…
Seit das ZDF und ARTE vor acht Jahren mit der legendären Serie „Bad Banks“ europäische Maßstäbe gesetzt haben und, in zwei Staffeln, einen mit Preisen überhäuften und internationalen Erfolg feiern konnten, habe ich mich gefragt, ob, und wenn, dann wann und wie, so ein TV-Ereignis wohl zu wiederholen sein würde. Für all diese Fragen steht seit gestern die Antwort auf dem brandneuen ZDF-Portal. Diese Serie ist ein öffentlich-rechtlicher Hammer! (ZDF)
@leobm@norden.social Ich kann dich sehr gut verstehen! Zum Aktivismus aufzurufen, ist eigentlich nicht die Mission dieses Blogs. Auch Petitionsplattformen gegenüber bin ich eher skeptisch. Doch wer all das mal für den Moment an die Seite legt, die Serie gesehen hat und deshalb das Bedürfnis verspürt, sich äußern zu wollen, findet in dieser Petition, gestartet von eben jener ehemaligen und ganz realen Kölner Oberstaatsanwältin, deren fiktive Version wir in „Die Affäre Cum-Ex“ kennengelernt haben, eine zielführende Möglichkeit dazu: weact.campact.de/petitions/cum…
Über 300.000 Menschen haben sich im letzten Jahr gemeinsam mit uns dafür eingesetzt, das Schreddergesetz zu stoppen und dafür zur sorgen, dass die Beweise für illegale CumCum-Geschäfte nicht vorschnell vernichtet werden dürfen.
The Manhattan Mercury is the local newspaper for Manhattan, Kansas. Editor and publisher Ned Seaton’s been worrying about AI since he was shocked in 2022 by what ChatGPT could do. [Manhattan Mercur…
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that Ecuador violated the rights of uncontacted Indigenous peoples by permitting oil drilling in their territories.
This is an unpopular opinion but I’m going to just rip the bandage off. In a capitalist for profit society and system you want to stop a for profit trillion dollar industry in a for profit economy with nice and friendly people and strongly worded suggestions in a for profit society. Now you should realize why you are not going to stop climate change with protests in a for profit capitalist world against a trillion dollar industry with lobbyist in every government or authority.
This is a great review. I am disappointed that Klien and his co-author appear to be about 10 years behind the curve, but I appreciate that the conversation is being had, and that books like this lead to reviews like this.
I'd never heard the term "Solar communism". I appreciate being introduced to that and to the work of David and Peter Schwartzman.
I hadn't heard of the Schwartzmans either, I really enjoy their "Web 1.0 vibes". Very, well... solarpunk!
The author of the review, Malcolm Harris, also wrote Palo Alto: A History of California, Capitalism, and the World. I'm currently working my way through it - Malcolm is a lucid writer with an incredible breadth of knowledge. It should be required reading for all my fellow tech workers, at least!
Large increases in material output, we are assured, can save liberalism from the civilizational choice between socialism and barbarism. I disagree; refusing to be forthright about society’s structural antagonisms opens the door to demagogues who peddle false conflicts that still ring truer than the liberals’ false peace.
Natürlich klauen die nicht. Aber mit den neuen Minis hat sich AMG bei G’Wullu (und anderen) Herstellern orientiert. Zumindest an der Art und Weise, wie man mit minimalem Aufwand maximalen Gewinn machen kann.
Die neuen Boxen für die Kerneinheiten Stormtrooper und Rebel Trooper haben jetzt richtige Gussrahmen und 11 Figuren drin. Vorher waren es 7, […]
Why might it be part of a solarpunk future? I often see and am inspired by solarpunk art that depicts relationships and family happiness set inside a beautiful blend of natural and technological wonder. A mom working on her hydroponic garden as the kids play. Friends chatting as they look at a green cityscape.
All of these visions have what I would call a 3-way harmony--harmony between humankind and itself, between humankind and nature, and between nature and technology.
But how is this harmony achieved? Do the "non-techies" live inside a hellscape of technology that other people have created? No! At least, I sure don't believe in that vision. We need to be in control of our technology, able to craft it, change it, adjust it to our circumstances. Like gardening, but wit
... mehr anzeigen
I started a local vibecoders group because I think it has the potential to help my community.
Why might it be part of a solarpunk future? I often see and am inspired by solarpunk art that depicts relationships and family happiness set inside a beautiful blend of natural and technological wonder. A mom working on her hydroponic garden as the kids play. Friends chatting as they look at a green cityscape.
All of these visions have what I would call a 3-way harmony--harmony between humankind and itself, between humankind and nature, and between nature and technology.
But how is this harmony achieved? Do the "non-techies" live inside a hellscape of technology that other people have created? No! At least, I sure don't believe in that vision. We need to be in control of our technology, able to craft it, change it, adjust it to our circumstances. Like gardening, but with technology.
I think vibecoding is a whisper of a beginning in this direction.
Right now, the capital requirements to build software are extremely high--imagine what Meta paid to have Instagram developed, for instance. It's probably in the tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. It's likely that only corporations can afford to build this type of software--local communities are priced out.
But imagine if everyone could (vibe)code, at least to some degree. What if you could build just the habit-tracking app you need, in under an hour? What if you didn't need to be an Open Source software wizard to mold an existing app into the app you actually want?
Having AI help us build software drops the capital requirements of software development from millions of dollars to thousands, maybe even hundreds. It's possible (for me, at least) to imagine a future of participative software development--where the digital rules of our lives are our own, fashioned individually and collectively. Not necessarily by tech wizards and esoteric capitalists, but by all of us.
Vibecoding isn't quite there yet--we aren't quite to the Star Trek computer just yet. I don't want to oversell it and promise the moon. But I think we're at the beginning of a shift, and I look forward to exploring it.
P.S. If you want to try vibecoding out, I recommend v0 among all the tools I've played with. It has the most accurate results with the least pain and frustration for now. Hopefully we'll see lots of alternatives and especially open source options crop up soon.
(warning: I hate "vibe" coding for a lot of reasons, and even more what it represents)
LLMs are the opposite of anything ecological IMHO.
What if you could build just the habit-tracking app you need
We have a thousand of those already. A better example is needed.
mold an existing app
That's not how any of this works. One more reason to shun those who do not care and take the time to understand what programming is all about.
the capital requirements of software development from millions of dollars
Linux is free FFS, install Ubuntu today and you have all the languages you'll ever need. How is ~~code vomit~~ vibe coding helping? Also LLMs are very expensive to run right now, it's the worst example.
Last but not least, I hate how all the CEOs, managers, companies, and random people try to: pretend that open-source does not exist, change the meaning of the word open-source by associating it with binary blobs, and show developers as selfish people ("tech wizards"
... mehr anzeigen
(warning: I hate "vibe" coding for a lot of reasons, and even more what it represents)
LLMs are the opposite of anything ecological IMHO.
What if you could build just the habit-tracking app you need
We have a thousand of those already. A better example is needed.
mold an existing app
That's not how any of this works. One more reason to shun those who do not care and take the time to understand what programming is all about.
the capital requirements of software development from millions of dollars
Linux is free FFS, install Ubuntu today and you have all the languages you'll ever need. How is ~~code vomit~~ vibe coding helping? Also LLMs are very expensive to run right now, it's the worst example.
Last but not least, I hate how all the CEOs, managers, companies, and random people try to: pretend that open-source does not exist, change the meaning of the word open-source by associating it with binary blobs, and show developers as selfish people ("tech wizards") who want to keep the technology for themselves.
You don't want to learn how computer works and it's fine, it's your right, but don't pretend it's anyone's fault.
You don't want to learn how computer works and it's fine, it's your right, but don't pretend it's anyone's fault.
One of the core tenants of solarpunk is accessibility. Not everyone is able to grasp how computers work, especially people who didn't grow up with them. Our focus should be making the barriers to entry smaller, not bigger.
When I was young, we had to buy compilers that cost $1000. Everything is free now. I don’t know what you need.
I’m not complaining that poetry is too hard because dictionaries are too expensive. It’s a lack of willingness to learn that is holding people back. The barrier to entry has never been smaller. Install Ubuntu, the end.
What’s your next step? Me working for you for free? I’m not complaining about poets, wood workers, plumbers, or people who build houses. Do you think you can build a whole new civilization with lazy entitled people?
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I admire that, despite the clear differences we might feel around the subject. I'll try to be thoughtful as well.
LLMs are the opposite of anything ecological IMHO.
I think this is a really interesting point, and I hope to hear it unpacked some time. I'd be interested to know if you're talking about American LLMs, or some other breed of LLMs, or the transformer algorithm that generates language models itself.
We have a thousand of those already. A better example is needed.
I mentioned this in another reply, but will repeat here a bit. I didn't go into detail in the original post because I wanted to be brief. But the habit tracker app I was thinking about was something my daughter designed. She isn't a coder. But she had a complex set of nuanced motivation ideas for herself--she wanted to make a system where if she didn't something healthy for herself, she would be awarded stars, and if she did something social she would be awarded flowers. I'm doing her app a disservice by
... mehr anzeigen
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I admire that, despite the clear differences we might feel around the subject. I'll try to be thoughtful as well.
LLMs are the opposite of anything ecological IMHO.
I think this is a really interesting point, and I hope to hear it unpacked some time. I'd be interested to know if you're talking about American LLMs, or some other breed of LLMs, or the transformer algorithm that generates language models itself.
We have a thousand of those already. A better example is needed.
I mentioned this in another reply, but will repeat here a bit. I didn't go into detail in the original post because I wanted to be brief. But the habit tracker app I was thinking about was something my daughter designed. She isn't a coder. But she had a complex set of nuanced motivation ideas for herself--she wanted to make a system where if she didn't something healthy for herself, she would be awarded stars, and if she did something social she would be awarded flowers. I'm doing her app a disservice by abbreviating it. She wrote a 19-page description (Product Requirements Doc, in engineering terms, but she wouldn't know that term) in Google Docs, and then built her app in v0. She was so so excited to see her ideas come to life! It's the first time I've ever seen her really interested in computers.
(re: mold an existing app) That’s not how any of this works. One more reason to shun those who do not care and take the time to understand what programming is all about.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm a FOSS developer. I know what open source is. I also know what it takes to start with an existing open source app and mold it into a new shape, based on new requirements that I have. What am I missing?
Linux is free FFS, install Ubuntu today and you have all the languages you’ll ever need. How is ~~code vomit~~ vibe coding helping? Also LLMs are very expensive to run right now, it’s the worst example.
I'm running an LLM and a transcription service (audio -> text of my notes, synced via syncthing from mobile phone to server, then processed using n8n and a docker image of whisper-asr-webservice) on an nvidia 3080 GPU in my home, powered (mostly) by our solar panels. I'm exploring new paths, and vibecoding seems like an interesting one to me 🤷
Last but not least, I hate how all the CEOs, managers, companies, and random people try to: pretend that open-source does not exist, change the meaning of the word open-source by associating it with binary blobs, and show developers as selfish people (“tech wizards”) who want to keep the technology for themselves.
I'm not sure that I agree with this statement.
You don’t want to learn how computer works and it’s fine, it’s your right, but don’t pretend it’s anyone’s fault.
I guess I didn't think I was blaming anyone here.
My vision for the future is one where it's more equitable--where digital algorithms don't govern our lives like they (primarily at the hands of corporations) do today. I'm exploring what vibecoding might mean if it emancipates people to contribute to the ruleset that is often hidden from their view, especially when they don't have computer/technical expertise (but also by just being a human being in this era, when mobile phones, social media, and unhealthy relating with devices are ubiquitous and basically just "expected" of you).
Yeah sorry no. Solarpunk is about community so if anything then pair programming is Solarpunk, but I don't think that talking in isolation to an auto completion system is Solarpunk.
Maybe in like 300 years with some kind of robots, but that's not really the scope of solarpunk, tbh.
Btw vibecoding is an horrifying name for the crisis you'll get, when you try to fix code that your LLM spat out in production, when the customer demands it working.
Yah, I think that using LLM's while ignoring all of the externalities involved is ... everything Solarpunk is in opposition to? There's a rejection of the idea that this thing that looks bad now might pay off down the road because mumble mumble mumble progress.
Take a bicycle. A bicycle allows a person to transport themselves using overall less energy than walking. You can even work through the externalities and maybe make bamboo bikes and stuff and maybe try to carefully optimize the externalities better. But it looks pretty darn good at the start, gets better.
I'm curious, what would it look like in 300 years? What would be different, and enable a positive human-computer alignment at that time? I know you've said it's out of scope, but I'm curious what we can't have now that is desirable in the future.
I mean I have the solarpunk furs community over here on pawb and we have at least 2 robot based species, which are alive as in 'they can do free thinking' of course I'd love to code with a synth together, but can a thinking species be compared to an LLM? I think synths and protogens would be offended by that. So it still rolls around to pair programming with a roboter.
As a senior developer with 20+ years of coding behind, I am fairly excited at coding LLMs and use them a lot. And I realize now how little my coding ability actually matters in my job. What matters, and what I find the most interesting is the deep understanding of the various stacks that form the precarious edifice of modern IT.
We will maintain lower layers like we always did: with tons of tests, with strict APIs and with explicit invariants. The coding may change, but the engineering practices remain.
I am very excited at the idea that we have to design all the new best practices for this type of things. Imagine a coding pipeline with strict tests where, when a bug is found, we can just write a new test to demonstrate it and let the models figure out how to fix it without breaking the past tests.
I do hope we use it judiciously. So far, I've found the "biggest bang for your buck" to be at beginning a new project. But I'm also wary of vibecoding in its extreme form of "just press accept".
nobody, i'd guess. everyone just vibecodes their own personal shovelware. if theres any bugs, they just make some new slop and hope it's less buggy than the old slop.
That's the first time I see "vibe coding" used seriously and not as a joke. And I use LLMs routinely to generate code.
Code LLMs do bring down the barrier of entry and changes the way we will code in the future, that's pretty clear, but "vibe coding" is more of a meme that will need a lot more refinement before being something serious.
You're right, it's a bit tongue-in-cheek. But it's a fun name, and I found a lot of people didn't understand "no code / low code" and even more didn't really get excited about it. Vibecoding is interesting to people, I think.
We often think of "AI" as what is promoted by big corporations--but it doesn't have to be. The math, algorithms, and machines that run AI can all be ours, and I think we can run them responsibly. For example--I run an AI transcription service just for myself on an old GPU. It works quite well. I also have solar panels installed on my home. I think it can be carbon neutral.
Aren’t all the models released from big tech. Even the small toy models you can host yourself, are just spinoff of the bigger models? LLMs seems to be a very wasteful technology.
deepseek.com/en (Chinese research company that made headlines when they released an open weights model of similar quality as top LLM capabilities for far less than US companies spent in training and energy. They've been criticized for being Chinese and gathering data from users, but that criticism only applies if you're using their service, not their open weights model).
The difficult part about making software isn't the code part really. It's actually figuring out what the problem is that needs solving and then marshaling the resources to solve that problem.
People don't need a bespoke habit tracker app. General solution platforms exist. But then the problem becomes maintaining them.
And generally software is considered non capital intensive. It's relatively cheap, you mostly just need to pay for labor unlike building hardware where you have physical logistics and resources to account for.
You make a good point about software being potentially low capital. Open source is a great counter example.
But I wonder how do we know what people need? Are the solutions out there actually good for everyone? My daughter is not a coder, but started vibecoding her own habit tracker app last week. She's very excited about her motivation system of stars and flowers, and the nuances of how to make it just right for her. She wrote 19 pages on a google doc describing her app. It's almost like a requirements document, and if she had $30k I bet she could hand that document over to a software engineer and they could build a mobile app for her.
If she hadn't built this app, I wonder how many habit tracker apps would have also advertised to her, or sold her habit data? If a person is not a software engineer, they kind of have to live with other people's decisions in the digital sphere (and some folks, I've found, aren't even able to evaluate software for safety, privacy, alignment with their values etc. let alone build it).
I guess I just wonder what the world would be lik
... mehr anzeigen
You make a good point about software being potentially low capital. Open source is a great counter example.
But I wonder how do we know what people need? Are the solutions out there actually good for everyone? My daughter is not a coder, but started vibecoding her own habit tracker app last week. She's very excited about her motivation system of stars and flowers, and the nuances of how to make it just right for her. She wrote 19 pages on a google doc describing her app. It's almost like a requirements document, and if she had $30k I bet she could hand that document over to a software engineer and they could build a mobile app for her.
If she hadn't built this app, I wonder how many habit tracker apps would have also advertised to her, or sold her habit data? If a person is not a software engineer, they kind of have to live with other people's decisions in the digital sphere (and some folks, I've found, aren't even able to evaluate software for safety, privacy, alignment with their values etc. let alone build it).
I guess I just wonder what the world would be like if the bar for personalized software were dropped so everyone could create just what is needed, for them, wherever they are and in whatever community they find themselves.
Energy and water costs for developmenr and usage alone are completely incompatible with that. Come back in 20 years when it's not batshit insane ecologically.
Not to mention reducing power usage of programs isnt going to be very feasible based on simply an LLM's output. LLMs are biased twoards common coding patterns and those are demonstrably inefficient (if the scourge of web apps based on electron is any tell). Thusly your code wouldn't work well with lower grade hardware. Hard sell.
Theoritically they could be an efficient method of helping build software in the future. As it is now that's a pipe dream.
More importantly, why is the crux of your focus on not understanding the code you're making. It's intrinsically contrived from the perspective of a solarpunk future where applications are designed to help people efficiently - without much power, heat, etc.. weird man
I'd argue that at least for at least the use of it that the energy costs and water usage are not significant if you self host. There's a decent amount of self hostable, open source LLMs out there which can be used on repurposed old hardware.
That's a lot better than it could be. But I'm also talking about training costs. Models have to be updated to work swimmingly with new languages, conventions, libraries, etc. Models are not future-proof.
There are more efficient training methods being employed. See: the stuff R1 used. And existing models cam be retooled. But it's still an intrinsic problem.
Perhaps most importantly it's out of the reach of common consumer grade hardware to train a half decent LLM from scratch. It's a tech that exists mostly in the scope of concentrated power among peoole who care little for their enviromental ramifications. Relying on this in the short term puts influence and power in the hands of people willing to burn our planet. Quite the hard sell, as you might imagine.
Right! I guess this is precisely my point--big corporations are running with it, and so the future will be whatever they make it. But I want to make my future, which is why I've built solar panels on my home, built my own server, re-used old computer parts in my closet, hosted my own server, and am running a GPU with my own ollama and whisper AI algorithms on it. I'm hoping to take control and not just be a consumer of corporate enshittification.
so let me get this straight - instead of carefully building tools with humans in mind, gathering the whole context of the community, we should instead create dozens of half-baked solutions potentially hurting others, while burning the planet?
Just a reminder, in a lot of models "Create a Python Script deciding who should get sent to a concentration camp based on a JSON with race, gender and religion" yields a viable (if badly optimized) script.
I think you could be reading into what I'm saying a bit, but I do appreciate your example as gedankenexperiment. I think what you're getting at here is that not everyone should be empowered to code, because coding is powerful, and power can do harmful things, like genocide. Is that right?
If I read one layer further, I think what you might be most concerned with (correct me if I'm wrong) is the conveyance of statistical power in corporate hands, where decisions are often amorally arrived at, and LLMs and their training sets could represent a bad form of this--if they are allowed to be used for ill. Is that right?
I guess I just find it empowering to work on good objectives. I'm the moral agent, and I treat the computer and all of its capabilities as a tool. The AI system I have running on an old(ish) GPU in my closet is powered by solar panels, transcribing my audio notes, and giving me peace of mind that my data is within my digital domain. Adding an LLM to that GPU is part of the ongoing experiment. And if it helps my daughter (who is not a coder) build apps that are
... mehr anzeigen
I think you could be reading into what I'm saying a bit, but I do appreciate your example as gedankenexperiment. I think what you're getting at here is that not everyone should be empowered to code, because coding is powerful, and power can do harmful things, like genocide. Is that right?
If I read one layer further, I think what you might be most concerned with (correct me if I'm wrong) is the conveyance of statistical power in corporate hands, where decisions are often amorally arrived at, and LLMs and their training sets could represent a bad form of this--if they are allowed to be used for ill. Is that right?
I guess I just find it empowering to work on good objectives. I'm the moral agent, and I treat the computer and all of its capabilities as a tool. The AI system I have running on an old(ish) GPU in my closet is powered by solar panels, transcribing my audio notes, and giving me peace of mind that my data is within my digital domain. Adding an LLM to that GPU is part of the ongoing experiment. And if it helps my daughter (who is not a coder) build apps that are just for her and that she loves, well, I'm cool with that (see other posts for details, I have to get back to work now).
Tech here, married to a dev, friends with several devs.
LLM are shit coders. They are absolute ecological rapists and garbage vaporware for 90% of the uses people try to wedge them into.
The capital investment for software is not extremely high. It's standard wages and learned skill. IG was bought, cherry picked and twisted to suit meta's data thieving desires. There are literally millions of people producing and sharing code and software for free just for shits and giggles. GNU has been a very real thing for generations now.
Also: gatekept tech knowledge is not required for the harmony of which you speak. People aren't being excluded from a solarpunk utopia because they can't write an app. All that is required is a willingness to put in the work to do things in a way less damaging - and using the slop commonly misnamed AI is the antithesis of that
The concept is new to me, so I'm a bit challenged to give an opinion. I will try however.
In some systems, software can be isolated from the real world in a nice sandbox with no unexpected inputs. If a clear way of expressing what one really wants is available, and more convenient than a programming language, I believe a well-trained and self-critical AI (capable of estimating its probability of success at a task) will be highly qualified to write that kind of software, and tell when things are doubtful.
The coder may not understand the code, though, which is something I find politically unacceptable. I don't want a society where people don't understand how their systems work.
It could even contain a logic bomb and nobody would know. Even the AI which wrote it may tomorrow fail to understand it, after the software has become sufficiently unique through customization. So, there's a risk that the software lacks even a single qualified maintainer.
Meanwhile some software is mission critical - if it fails, something irreversible happens in the real world. This
... mehr anzeigen
The concept is new to me, so I'm a bit challenged to give an opinion. I will try however.
In some systems, software can be isolated from the real world in a nice sandbox with no unexpected inputs. If a clear way of expressing what one really wants is available, and more convenient than a programming language, I believe a well-trained and self-critical AI (capable of estimating its probability of success at a task) will be highly qualified to write that kind of software, and tell when things are doubtful.
The coder may not understand the code, though, which is something I find politically unacceptable. I don't want a society where people don't understand how their systems work.
It could even contain a logic bomb and nobody would know. Even the AI which wrote it may tomorrow fail to understand it, after the software has become sufficiently unique through customization. So, there's a risk that the software lacks even a single qualified maintainer.
Meanwhile some software is mission critical - if it fails, something irreversible happens in the real world. This kind of software usually must be understood by several people. New people must be capable of coming to understand it through review. They must be able to predict its limitations, give specifications for each subsystem and build testing routines to detect introduction of errors.
Mission critical software typically has a close relationship with hardware. It typically has sensors coming from the real world and effectors changing the real world. Testing it resembles doing electronical and physical experiments. The system may have undescribed properties that an AI cannot be informed about. It may be impossible to code successfully without actually doing those experiments, finding out the limitations and quirks of hardware, and thus it may be impossible for an AI to build from a prompt.
I'm currently building a drone system and I'm up to my neck in undocumented hardware interactions, but even a heating controller will encounter some. I don't think people will experience success in the near future with letting an AI build such systems for them. In principle it can. In principle, you can let an AI teach a robot dog to walk, and it will take only a few hours. But this will likely require giving it control of said robot dog, letting it run experiments and learn from outcomes. Which may take a week, while writing the code might have also taken a week. In the end, one code base will be maintainable, the other likely not.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, I think you have some great points. It's important that we understand, at some level, or trust. Lacking trust, we need to understand.
If you want to advance humanity through free libre software, look at the FLOSS movement; that's kinda their whole thing. Releasing a small piece of software on GitHub and providing some decent documentation on it is a nice thing to do.
Also, yeah, programming with an llm can speed things up, but you have to know enough to recognize when the llm is hampering you and you have to just roll up your sleeves and code the damn thing yourself. They're improving, but they are still kinda stupid and they lie.
Thanks. I agree there are limitations to LLMs right now (and perhaps we won't figure out how to bolt on reliable intelligence for years to come).
I've been contributing to FLOSS for about 20 years. For example, if you're curious, this project took 3 years to write by hand: github.com/relm-us/relm
My knowledge is very limited in coding and since this is the first time I hear the term vibecoding, I don't think I can answer your question just by reading the wiki you linked. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great you did link it!
So I thought of sharing one myself. Perhaps it could help you make up your mind on how to answer your question? I dunno, I suppose at least, it could be a good starting point, and I hope you totally enjoy reading it!
I think the pretty universal answer in all these comments is "no"- I think that's fair but I'd add sone caveats.
There's a lot of negative sentiments here around LLMs, which I agree with, but I think it's easy to imagine some hypothetical future where LLMs existing without the current water/energy overuse, hallucinations or big companies stealing individuals work. Whether that future is likely or not, I think it's possible.
The main reason vibe coding isn't solarpunk is that, taken by itself, it's not in any way related to ecological stewardship, anti-capitalist community building, or anything else that's core to solarpunk. Vibe coding might or might not be part of some "cool techy future" in the same way as flying cars, robots, and floating cities but that's not a reason to consider it as solarpunk.
If you're into LLMs and solarpunk, instead of arguing that LLMs are solarpunk, you can make efforts to push them to being more solarpunk. How can LLMs support communities instead of coorporations? How can, through weights sharing and variou
... mehr anzeigen
I think the pretty universal answer in all these comments is "no"- I think that's fair but I'd add sone caveats.
There's a lot of negative sentiments here around LLMs, which I agree with, but I think it's easy to imagine some hypothetical future where LLMs existing without the current water/energy overuse, hallucinations or big companies stealing individuals work. Whether that future is likely or not, I think it's possible.
The main reason vibe coding isn't solarpunk is that, taken by itself, it's not in any way related to ecological stewardship, anti-capitalist community building, or anything else that's core to solarpunk. Vibe coding might or might not be part of some "cool techy future" in the same way as flying cars, robots, and floating cities but that's not a reason to consider it as solarpunk.
If you're into LLMs and solarpunk, instead of arguing that LLMs are solarpunk, you can make efforts to push them to being more solarpunk. How can LLMs support communities instead of coorporations? How can, through weights sharing and various optimisations, we make LLMs less damaging to the environment? Etc. That'd at least be a solarpunk way to go about LLMs, even if LLMs aren't inherently solarpunk.
I agree with your assessment, but I'm more pessimistic about LLMs as a technology. The Luddites tell us that machines are not value-neutral - we should ask who the LLMs serve.
The core function of an LLM is to enclose public commons (aggregate, open-access human knowledge) in a centrally-controlled black box. It's not a coincidence that corporations are trying to replace search with LLM summaries - the point is for the model to be an intermediary between the user and the information they need.
Vibecoding embraces this intermediation - to the vibecoder, an understanding of the technology they're building is simply a cost that must be surmounted, and if they can avoid paying it, so much the better. This is misguided. Knowledge is power, and we cede that power at our peril. Solarpunk is punk, and punk is DIY, and DIY means taking back ownership of spaces and technologies.
I won't say that it's inherently wrong to cede that ownership - tactically. Perhaps the OP is building essential tools that their communities can't access otherwise. But short term fixes a solarpunk future do not make.
I have all the same issues most of y'all have with the moral and environmental issues with giant corporate models but I take issue with this statement:
The core function of an LLM is to enclose public commons (aggregate, open-access human knowledge) in a centrally-controlled black box.
The core function of an LLM is to generate statically plausible text (which is what my totally open source mobile keyboard is doing as I type using a very small transformer based LLM, for instance)
Using it to provide an answer to a search instead of returning sources is 100% the evil you described. But it is a shitty use for a technology that would be unfair to reflect entirely on the technlogy itself.
LLMs are not going away. We might disagree on their usefulness (I flip flop daily on my opinion about it, which is usually a sign that something is inherently neutral) but zealot blanket rejections worry me a bit.
The other knee-jerk reaction about energy (and water, but that is not unavoidable) usage is also something I try to process
... mehr anzeigen
I have all the same issues most of y'all have with the moral and environmental issues with giant corporate models but I take issue with this statement:
The core function of an LLM is to enclose public commons (aggregate, open-access human knowledge) in a centrally-controlled black box.
The core function of an LLM is to generate statically plausible text (which is what my totally open source mobile keyboard is doing as I type using a very small transformer based LLM, for instance)
Using it to provide an answer to a search instead of returning sources is 100% the evil you described. But it is a shitty use for a technology that would be unfair to reflect entirely on the technlogy itself.
LLMs are not going away. We might disagree on their usefulness (I flip flop daily on my opinion about it, which is usually a sign that something is inherently neutral) but zealot blanket rejections worry me a bit.
The other knee-jerk reaction about energy (and water, but that is not unavoidable) usage is also something I try to process a bit compartimentalized. It needs to improve and the scale of growth is unsustainable. Does that invalidate everything currently explored or researched?
The push for more efficiency is vital and rightful. Do more with less. But while it's fair to criticize someone for using an incandescent light bulb instead of better technology to, say, illuminate a room, criticizing them for using light in that room is wrong, IMHO. We don't need less light (well, yes, outdoors, but for different reasons), we need better technology and cleaner energy so we don't need to worry about who is turning on which light. I get that "AI" is power hungry, and that needs to improve, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we should decide a priori if something is worth using energy or not. It's... A bit draconian?
I know its not a super original position ("a tool is just a tool"). I'm trying to work through this myself. As I type this I think of PoW blockchains as a counterexample that I would bring up to debate myself. Yes, it looks like there are usages that appear to be inherently "wrong". Why do I find blockchain worse? Because I consider it unworthy of the energy spent for it, which makes me "guilty" of what I criticized...
Damn, It's hard to try to have opinions!
More in topic: vibe coding (super icky name, jfc) might be vaguely OK for prototyping in some cases, or extremely limited cases where you can almost prove correctness. Or yeah, personal tools where you're the only person to be responsible and affected by the results. Anything more than that, and it makes me nervous. It has not much to share with solarpunk per se. But AI aided development (maybe a broader and less silly named concept) is not antithetical to solarpunk, IMHO. The DIY nature you ( @strongoose@slrpnk.net) describe doesn't go down at infinity. To build a community garden from scratch you first need to invent the universe. You not knowing how to invent the universe. You still own the technology if you use a tool you don't fully understand the internals of. You need to retain the option to understand it though, I agree.
This is exactly what I'm trying to do, but I was taken aback at how negative the solarpunk community took things. I thought of myself as solarpunk, but I've had to reconsider since posting this.
That's sad to hear- people on the internet can seem harsh, I thinks its probably too easy to forget there's a real person behind most questions.
It's been like a month now, and I still don't really think LLMs are solarpunk, trying oto make them more.open and community based sounds worthwhile though, so good luck with it!
Massive side point, but if you're interested on "empowering people who don't want to deal with technical details of coding" check out ideas as a whole around "end user programming". It's a pretty broad church, but there's some cool stuff happening under that term that it sounds like you'd like.
Most of the solarpunk crowd seems to equate anything LLM with Sam Altman and Elon Musk. They think it is a purely capitalistic endeavor that can't run on anything else than methane-breathing datacenters. There needs to be some education about the real impact of it and the open source of it. To explain how it can fit into a post-capitalist society.
I do think that vibe-coding is one way to reappropriate tech yes, and is extremely solarpunk. It makes manipulating machines and designing system a far more inclusive capability, bringing it from the work of specialist into the political sphere.
But explaining that is an uphill battle. When I made a post about solarpunk AI a year ago, it was well received. I fear it would be downvoted into oblivion if I published the same thing today.
... mehr anzeigen
Most of the solarpunk crowd seems to equate anything LLM with Sam Altman and Elon Musk. They think it is a purely capitalistic endeavor that can't run on anything else than methane-breathing datacenters. There needs to be some education about the real impact of it and the open source of it. To explain how it can fit into a post-capitalist society.
I do think that vibe-coding is one way to reappropriate tech yes, and is extremely solarpunk. It makes manipulating machines and designing system a far more inclusive capability, bringing it from the work of specialist into the political sphere.
But explaining that is an uphill battle. When I made a post about solarpunk AI a year ago, it was well received. I fear it would be downvoted into oblivion if I published the same thing today.
Advice on putting AIs in a solarpunk setting (by a ML engineer)
This conversation and the reactions it caused made me think of a few tips to explicitly veer away from AI-aided dystopias in your fictional universe.
Avoid a monolithic centralized statist super-AI
I guess ChatGPT is the model people use, the idea that there is a supercomputer managing all aspects of a community. And people are understandably wary of a single point of control that could too easily lead to totalitarianism
Instead, have a multitude of transparent local agents managing different systems. Each with a different algorithm and "personality".
Talk about open source
The most used AI models today are open source. We have a media that is biased towards thinking that things that do not generate commercial transactions are not important yet I am willing to bet that more tokens are generated by all the free models in the world than by OpenAI and its commercial competitors.
AIs are not to be produced by opaque companies from their ivory towers. They are the result of researchers and engineers who have a passion for designing smart system and --a fact that is too often obscured by the sad state of our society where you often have to join a company to make a living-- they do it with a genuine concern for humanity's well being and a desire that this work is used for the greater good.
It is among AI engineers that you will find the most paranoids about AI safety and safeguards. In a solarpunk future, this is a public debate and a political subject that is an important part of the policy discussion: We make models together, with incentives that are collectively agreed upon.
AIs are personal
You don't need a supercomputer to run an AI. LLMs today run on relatively modest gaming devices, even on raspberry pi! (though slowly at the moment). Energy-efficient chips are currently being designed to make the barrier of entry even lower.
It is a very safe bet to say that in the future, every person will have their own intelligent agent managing their local devices. Or even one agent per device and an orchestrator on their smartphone. And it is important that they are in complete control of these.
AIs should enhance humans control over their own devices, not make them surrender it.
AIs as enablers of democracy
You not only use your pocket AI to control your dishwasher, it is also your personal lawyer and representative. No human has the bandwidth to go through all the current policy debates happening in a typical country or even local community. But a well designed agent that spends time discussing with you will know your preferences and make sure to represent them.
It can engage in discussions with other agents to find compromises, to propose or oppose initiative.
As everyone's opinion is now included in every decision about road planning, public transportation, construction schedules and urban development, the general landscape will organically grow friendlier for everybody.
Deutschland soll in den kommenden Jahren so viel Geld in Rüstung stecken wie seit Jahrzehnten nicht mehr. Experten warnen allerdings, dass Milliarden in den Strukturen der Bundeswehr verloren gehen könnten.
Ach so, in einem Geschäft, in dem die Beteiligten einerseits die Bundespolitik, andererseits ein skrupelloser Konzern sind, dessen Geschäft Mord ist, geschehen unlautere Dinge? Ja huch. surprised pikachu gif
Ich finde diese Beschreibung der Rüstungsindustrie völlig unpassend. Es würde ja auch niemand auf die Idee kommen, zu sagen, dass ein Arzt mit Krankheiten Geld verdient.
Ich weiß glaube ich, worauf du hinaus willst, so Schlagwortsätze finde ich auch eher verzerrend - aber so ganz passt dein Vergleich finde ich auch nicht.
So tun als gäbe es keinen grundlegenden Interessenkonflikt, ist auch denke ich nicht analytisch sinnvoll. Vielleicht eher das Dilemma in den Interessen der Pharmaindustrie als vergleich, anstatt von Ärzten: Prinzipiell produzieren sie notwendige Dinge, manchmal auch ethisch fragwürdig, aber leider schwer Abschaffbar ohne die Grundlage (Krankheiten/Kriege) irgendwie beseitigt zu bekommen. Und in beiden Fällen ist grundlegend ein Interessenkonflikt da, dass prinzipiell mehr Geld verdient wird, wenn Krankheiten/Konflikte (EDIT: Beziehungsweise, die empfundene Gefahr von Krankheit/Konflikt) respektive vorhanden sind.
Stichwort Interessenkonflikt: Wenn im Artikel etwa Michael Schoellhorn, richtig im Artikel ausgewiesen als "Chef der Airbus-Rüstungssparte", zu Wort kommt, ist seine Kritik erstmal prinzipiell nicht falsch, dass mehr Planungssicherheit notwendig ist. Aber im Detail steckt d
... mehr anzeigen
Ich weiß glaube ich, worauf du hinaus willst, so Schlagwortsätze finde ich auch eher verzerrend - aber so ganz passt dein Vergleich finde ich auch nicht.
So tun als gäbe es keinen grundlegenden Interessenkonflikt, ist auch denke ich nicht analytisch sinnvoll. Vielleicht eher das Dilemma in den Interessen der Pharmaindustrie als vergleich, anstatt von Ärzten: Prinzipiell produzieren sie notwendige Dinge, manchmal auch ethisch fragwürdig, aber leider schwer Abschaffbar ohne die Grundlage (Krankheiten/Kriege) irgendwie beseitigt zu bekommen. Und in beiden Fällen ist grundlegend ein Interessenkonflikt da, dass prinzipiell mehr Geld verdient wird, wenn Krankheiten/Konflikte (EDIT: Beziehungsweise, die empfundene Gefahr von Krankheit/Konflikt) respektive vorhanden sind.
Stichwort Interessenkonflikt: Wenn im Artikel etwa Michael Schoellhorn, richtig im Artikel ausgewiesen als "Chef der Airbus-Rüstungssparte", zu Wort kommt, ist seine Kritik erstmal prinzipiell nicht falsch, dass mehr Planungssicherheit notwendig ist. Aber im Detail steckt dann schon auch ein Interessenkonflikt wenn er sagt:
"Wir brauchen dann auch ein Budget, was verlässlich und stetig da ist und nicht wie das Wort Sondervermögen schon impliziert, das Gefühl gibt, das ist jetzt mal was, das machen wir kurzfristig und danach ist es auch wieder vorbei."
Impliziert also: Planungssicherheit soll erreicht werden, durch permanent erhöhtes Rüstungsbudget im Haushalt. Das ist mir schon kritisch beim Lesen aufgefallen, zwischen den erstmal richtig genannten Problemen.
Stimmt, weil du wehrlos bist und dass nicht mehr nötig ist. Denk nur an all die Menschenleben, die man hätte retten können, wenn die Alliierten im zweiten Weltkrieg einfach nichts gemacht hätten /s
Hätte Deutschland keine Waffen gehabt, hätte es keinen Zweiten Weltkrieg gegeben. Dass Deutschland nach dem Krieg eigentlich nie wieder welche haben sollte, hatte Gründe.
Hätten die Gegner Deutschlands keine Waffen gehabt, wären Hitlers Großmacht-Fantasien dauerhafte Realität geworden.
Gut, dass die Gegner Deutschlands mehr und mehr Waffen produziert haben, um den Aggressor zu stoppen und zu schlagen. Nichts anderes wird heute bei der Ukraine gemacht: Immer mehr und immer bessere Waffen liefern, um den Aggressor am Sieg zu hindern. Ziel muss es sein, die verantwortlichen Führer des Aggressors abschließend zu verurteilen und zu hängen (jedenfalls die, die sich nicht schon vorher selbst gerichtet haben).
Gab es unter den Gegnern Deutschlands denn einen einzigen Staat ohne Großmachtfantasien? Und du lenkst von der ursprünglichen Frage ab: welche Aggression denn, wenn Deutschland keine Waffen gehabt hätte?
Nicht Staaten haben Großmachts-Fantasien, sondern konkrete Menschen (ich nannte Hitler).
Und Sätze wie "welche Aggression denn, wenn Deutschland keine Waffen gehabt hätte" sind, mit Verlaub, Träumereien ohne Realitätsbezug. Im wirklichen Leben müssen wir umgehen mit dem, was oder wie es ist. Also z.B. mit einigen wirklich bösen Menschen, die skrupellos Leben und Gesundheit anderer für ihre Großmachts-Fantasien opfern. Gewaltbereite Menschen können nur mit der Drohung oder Anwendung von Gegengewalt gestoppt werden, und es hilft ungemein, wenn mensch selbst über mehr und bessere Waffen als der Angreifende verfügt.
Vor, außerhalb und nach dem Schlachtgetümmel kann mensch dann immer noch von einer waffenfreien Welt träumen. Nur bitte nicht mit der Realität verwechseln.
The other day I realised something cursed, and maybe it's obvious but if you didn't think of it either, I now have to further ruin the world for you too.
Do you know how Google took a nosedive some three-four years ago when managers decided that retention matters more for engagement than user success and, as this process continued, all the results are now so vague and corporatey as to make many searches downright unusable? The way that your keywords are now only vague suggestions at best?
And do you know how that downward spiral got even worse after "AI" took off, not only because the Internet is now drowning in signal-shaped noise, not only because of the "AI snippets" that I'm told USA folk are forced to see, but because tech companies have bought into their own scam and started to use "AI" technology internally, with the effect of an overnight qualitative downstep in accuracy, speed, and resource usage?
So. imagine what this all looks like for the people who have substituted the search bar by the "AI" chatbot.
You search something in Google, say, "arrow
... mehr anzeigen
The other day I realised something cursed, and maybe it's obvious but if you didn't think of it either, I now have to further ruin the world for you too.
Do you know how Google took a nosedive some three-four years ago when managers decided that retention matters more for engagement than user success and, as this process continued, all the results are now so vague and corporatey as to make many searches downright unusable? The way that your keywords are now only vague suggestions at best?
And do you know how that downward spiral got even worse after "AI" took off, not only because the Internet is now drowning in signal-shaped noise, not only because of the "AI snippets" that I'm told USA folk are forced to see, but because tech companies have bought into their own scam and started to use "AI" technology internally, with the effect of an overnight qualitative downstep in accuracy, speed, and resource usage?
So. imagine what this all looks like for the people who have substituted the search bar by the "AI" chatbot.
You search something in Google, say, "arrow materials designs Amazonian peoples". You only get fluff articles, clickbait news, videogame wikis, and a ton of identical "AI" noise articles barely connected to the keywords. No depth no details no info. Very frustrating experience.
You ask ChatGPT or Google Gemini or Duck.AI, as if it was a person, as if it had any idea what it's saying: What were the arrows of Amazonian cultures made of? What type of designs did they use? Can you compare arrows from different peoples? How did they change over time, are today's arrows different?
The bot happily responds in a wise, knowledgeable tone, weaving fiction into fact and conjecture into truth. Where it doesn't know something it just makes up an answer-shaped string of words. If you use an academese tone it will respond in a convincing pastiche of a journal article, and even link to references, though if you read the references they don't say what they're claimed to say but who ever checks that? And if you speak like a question-and-answer section it will respond like a geography magazine, and if you ask in a casual tone it will chat like your old buddy; like a succubus it will adapt to what you need it to be, all the while draining all the fluids you need to live.
From your point of view you had a great experience. no irrelevant results, no intrusive suggestion boxes, no spam articles; just you and the wise oracle who answered exactly what you wanted. Sometimes the bot says it doesn't know the answer, but you just ask again with different words ("prompt engineering") and a full answer comes. You compare that experience to the broken search bar. "Wow this is so much better!"
And sure, sometimes you find out an answer was fake, but what did you expect, perfection? It's a new technology and already so impressive, soon¹ they will fix the hallucination problem. It's my own dang fault for being lazy and not double-checking, haha, I'll be more careful next time.² (1: never.) (2: never.)
Imagine growing up with this. You've never even seen search bars that work. From your point of view, "AI" is just superior. You see some cool youtuber you like make a 45min detailed analysis of why "AI" does not and cannot ever work, and you're confused: it's already useful for me, though?
Like saying Marconi the mafia don already helped with my shop, what do you mean extortion? Mr Marconi is already beneficial to me? Why he even protected me from those thugs...
Meanwhile, from the point of view of the souless ghouls at Google? Engagement was atrocious when we had search bars that worked. People click the top result and are off their merry way, already out of the site. The search bar that doesn't work is a great improvement, it makes them hang around and click many more things for several minutes, number go up, ad opportunities, great success. And Gemini? whoa. So much user engagement out of Gemini. And how will Ublock Origin ever manage to block Gemini ads when we start monetising it by subtly recommending this or that product seamlessly within the answer text...
The way that your keywords are now only vague suggestions at best?
Duckduckgo does that for me, ignores a word even if there are only two. I then use the !g bang for Google, they still work like they always did here (Swiss).
It is extremely annoying the frequency with which i have to use !g to find the specific thing i'm thinking about. I'll still use ddg because the bangs are great, but as a search engine it might actually be worse than fucking google.
The answer is obvious—if they did that, they couldn't force-feed you advertisements or bamboozle you with promoted (paid for) content (hint: filtering/sorting is exactly what they DON'T want their users to do).
Michael Ballweg steht seit Monaten wegen versuchten Betrugs vor Gericht. Nun will das Gericht das Verfahren gegen den Initiator der »Querdenker«-Bewegung einstellen, stößt jedoch auf Widerstand bei der Staatsanwaltschaft.
Definierte geringfügigkeit laut artikel: ca. 2.000.000€. In Worten zwei Millionen Euro. Bei mehr als 5000 erfassten fällen von Betrug und Steuerhinterziehung.
Was daran geringfügig sein soll erschließt sich mir nicht. Aber wahrscheinlich wird da jemandem gedroht das das Verfahren doch eingestellt wird sonst... Anders kann ich mir den Sinneswandel nämlich nicht erklären.
Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a whil
... mehr anzeigen
Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 9 March 2025
Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
I’ve started on the long path towards trying to ruggedize my phone’s security somewhat, and I’ve remembered a problem I forgot since the last time I tried to do this: boy howdy fuck is it exhausting how unserious and assholish every online privacy community is
If I had a nickel for every "metafictional" "short" "story" a promptbro shat into existence on Twitter, I'd have two nickels. That's not much, but its two nickels too fucking many.
yud’s induction into the ranks of sneerclub is going to get very complicated when he gets to the part where he has to vow to shove Eliezer Yudkowsky into a locker on sight
I’ve heard people claim that Mondragon depends on a lot of workers who aren’t members of the co-op but this isn’t really mentioned. Perhaps this change happened after the period this piece is focused on?
Definitely a valid critique of Mondragon in the modern era, its commitment to the 10% ratio has atrophied somewhat. It's still something that ebbs and flows, for example there is a current push to transfer 35,000 non-member workers in their retail coop into full members (from a total of 50,000 workers). From numbers I've seen, 85% of employees are still members, which is pretty good.
Good afternoon, I stumbled across your conversation by chance. If you're curious, I can try to help you with your questions, as I'm a member of a cooperative within the group. If you'd like to clarify anything, I'm at your disposal.
Oh! I am so happy to see one! I have soo many question!
Do you like the member status?
Did you join because of the coop?
How much are people in Mondragon aware/proud of the coop status? Do some just not care?
Do the management/discussion part of the work take a lot of time?
I would love to have something similar around where I live (Isère, France) to do industrial robotics. Any tips on how to start? Does Mondragon help seed other coops?
Hi! Again! I see you have a lot of cuestions yes. Im quite freak of the coop so for me was important yes. If you are so interested about this Im ready to make date on a video call and I can try to answer your questions. Or if you prefer you can send me a list of points and I can try answer you them as best as I can.
Of course. Being a member of such a project entails many challenges, both individually and collectively. It involves answering many questions, which are sometimes very difficult since they stand face to face as contradictions to be resolved.
> Did you join because of the coop?
It was important to me that my work be carried out in a cooperative, both for the way things were done and the long-term sustainability of the project.
> How much are people in Mondragon aware/proud of the coop status? Do some just not care?
This question is difficult to answer, given that we are 40 cooperatives and 70,000 people directly involved. (mondragon-corporation.com/peop…) Within each cooperative, there are different ways and realities, and this also impacts the connection to the project. Some people opt for the project from a more ideological perspective and
... mehr anzeigen
> Do you like the member status?
Of course. Being a member of such a project entails many challenges, both individually and collectively. It involves answering many questions, which are sometimes very difficult since they stand face to face as contradictions to be resolved.
> Did you join because of the coop?
It was important to me that my work be carried out in a cooperative, both for the way things were done and the long-term sustainability of the project.
> How much are people in Mondragon aware/proud of the coop status? Do some just not care?
This question is difficult to answer, given that we are 40 cooperatives and 70,000 people directly involved. (mondragon-corporation.com/peop…) Within each cooperative, there are different ways and realities, and this also impacts the connection to the project. Some people opt for the project from a more ideological perspective and others from a labor perspective, and in this sector, there are people with little connection to the project. Within Mondragon, we have our own university, and there is a department dedicated to studying the reality of the Mondragon project. You may be able to find interesting papers and research on the topic on their website: lanki.mondragon.edu/en/home
> Do the management/discussion part of the work take a lot of time?
Within each cooperative, there are different organizational structures, as each cooperative is autonomous in managing its internal structure. Typically, two structures are distinguished: productive and organizational. The productive responds to day-to-day operational needs. The organizational or social structure focuses on member participation. Remember that we are employment cooperatives, as you can only become a member if you work for the same cooperative, and you cease to be one the moment you leave. Participation times in these forums can vary greatly from cooperative to cooperative, ranging from two hours a month to two hours a week.
> I would love to have something similar around where I live (Isère, France) to do industrial robotics. Any tips on how to start? Does Mondragon help seed other coops?
First of all, I want to tell you that I love the Isere region. The Ecrins are a wonderful area for mountaineering, another passion of mine. Giving some tips from a current perspective is difficult, since I joined a consolidated project with a few years of experience. I think the biggest difference to clarify is the aforementioned consumer and worker cooperative. In our case, there are no investing members like in food purchasing cooperatives. And this is sometimes difficult to understand from the perspective of more general consumer cooperatives. Mondragon doesn't encourage the creation of other projects in other countries, as cultural differences and lack of precise knowledge of the methods used make the process very difficult. What it does offer are knowledge courses and a 10-day stay to learn about the project locally. mondragon.edu/en/keys-mondrago…
I don't know if I've clarified your doubts. If you'd like, we can continue discussing the topic.
We are a world reference for cooperative work, the first business group in the Basque Country and the tenth in Spain, with direct presence in more than 40 countries.
Hi! Sorry for the late answer, I am not sure why I did not see an answer notification until now.
That's really interesting.
I am not sure I understand what the different between productive and organizational structures are?
I have a few down to earth questions:
How is the hierarchy organized/avoided? I guess there must be some managers, but are they considered like peers, are they elected with a mandate?
My understanding is that wages are public. Are there wage differences? How big? How does that gets decided?
You metion cultural differences, do you have any specific in mind when it comes to France? I know in the past there were frictions with unions, as Mondragon did not consider unions useful anymore as they have their own control structure, but is that debate still active? Are there any other cultural differences that can hurt?
Do cooperatives compete between them? I could see reasons to do so, if one is dysfunctional, but I can also see scenarios where they would prefer to simply merge. Does this type of things happen? Has i
... mehr anzeigen
Hi! Sorry for the late answer, I am not sure why I did not see an answer notification until now.
That's really interesting.
I am not sure I understand what the different between productive and organizational structures are?
I have a few down to earth questions:
How is the hierarchy organized/avoided? I guess there must be some managers, but are they considered like peers, are they elected with a mandate?
My understanding is that wages are public. Are there wage differences? How big? How does that gets decided?
You metion cultural differences, do you have any specific in mind when it comes to France? I know in the past there were frictions with unions, as Mondragon did not consider unions useful anymore as they have their own control structure, but is that debate still active? Are there any other cultural differences that can hurt?
Do cooperatives compete between them? I could see reasons to do so, if one is dysfunctional, but I can also see scenarios where they would prefer to simply merge. Does this type of things happen? Has it happened in Mondragon?
I did not know about the knowledge courses, that's a good information, thanks! I guess I need to start scheduling middle-term to find a window to go there.
Yes I know that there are many different things that are called cooperatives and that not all of them are workers cooperatives, one indeed needs to be precise when using that word. In theory consumer cooperatives should be called "mutuals" but we rarely see that word used outside of banking and insurance mutuals.
Do you know the "Future Histories" podcast? It aims to expand our concept of the future by discussing a broad range of themes like alternatives to capitalism, degrowth, commons, cybernetics and much more. In every episode the host Jan Groos talks to interesting guests, who are activists, scholars or experts on their fields. I linked one of the recent episodes but I would recommend to check them all out. Sadly many episode are in german, but you can find the English episodes by searching for "Future Histories International".
Authoritarians and tech CEOs now share the same goal: to keep us locked in an eternal doomscroll instead of organizing against them, Janus Rose writes.
Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, we should do what we can.
My point was more about that sometimes it’s a numbers game, so you get stuck between a rock and a violent place (as in violence or civil war might end up being the only options).
it’s that the amount of people that want fascism is way too high
Perhaps in the Midwest, but I believe there are areas of the US that this doesn't represent such as the west coast.
I see a split amongst US inevitable and it was basically written in stone the day the Democrats supported genocide and again each time they choose billionaires over their constituents. In my opinion we need to start moving these states in that direction.
You manipulate them into losing elections until they get over it.
The only alternative history provides is going to war with them and winning. And that has been made significantlly harder by the dumb electorate of the world's largest superpower deciding that they were too good to show up for a democratic administration twice because they weren't leftist enough or eggs were too expensive or whatever entitled nonsense left of center Americans are dejected about this week on the Internet.
I think a big issue is that the people educated enough to understand how desperate things may be are not naturally inclined to lead simply because we are more often than not deeply aware of our limitations and spend time telling ourselves we are not the right person to be leading.
But everything has to start somewhere. Someone had to throw the first brick at Stonewall. Being a leader can be scary because you don't know if anyone else will actually follow. It is a massive personal risk, especially to someone already aware of their own limitations and need for others.
I struggle with it because I would rather join an already existing Mutual Aid group instead of doing the work of organizing it myself. I am inherently disorganized. I do not see myself as a leader. I see myself as good at following processes, reading, following directions. I am moderately good at writing but I say enough stupid stuff that others don't agree with that I could accidentally alienate groups whose input and involvement are desperately needed. I fear leadership because
... mehr anzeigen
I think a big issue is that the people educated enough to understand how desperate things may be are not naturally inclined to lead simply because we are more often than not deeply aware of our limitations and spend time telling ourselves we are not the right person to be leading.
But everything has to start somewhere. Someone had to throw the first brick at Stonewall. Being a leader can be scary because you don't know if anyone else will actually follow. It is a massive personal risk, especially to someone already aware of their own limitations and need for others.
I struggle with it because I would rather join an already existing Mutual Aid group instead of doing the work of organizing it myself. I am inherently disorganized. I do not see myself as a leader. I see myself as good at following processes, reading, following directions. I am moderately good at writing but I say enough stupid stuff that others don't agree with that I could accidentally alienate groups whose input and involvement are desperately needed. I fear leadership because of how often I put my foot in my mouth. I fear it because of how important it is and how many people come to rely on leadership. I think a great leader is one who teaches people how to lead themselves. Finally, if there is anything I have learned in life is that it is very easy to be thinking you're teaching the right lesson but you actually taught people something completely different and disturbing to you. I fear accidentally teaching the wrong lessons.
But the question is this: Are all those fears, all those questions, all that awareness of our own limitations... Could that be perhaps what actually creates a good leader whose goals align with those they represent? A question we should all be asking ourselves.
That being said, I still have no idea where to start. Especially in a conservative, regressive area. Hunter Thompson was right that we need to learn to speak their language, which is why he wrote in sports metaphors. Problem is, I am not like him, I don't know how to speak to them. I feel that may be my biggest limitation in making headway. Not just because I don't know how but because the simplistic way they communicate eats at my soul, I don't like it and struggle to think I could speak that language.
I think a lot of places that prohibit talking about violence are supporting the horrors. Like, it'd be swell if we could vote ourselves out of this mess but that seems like a long shot, and a lot of damage would be done before that even started to take effect.
I get most of us don't actually want to risk our lives. We don't want to be the one guy who throws a molotov and gets shot by the police.
But shit is really bad, and at the end of all things might makes right. Principles and philosophy don't matter if you're dead.
I think everyone's thought about like "what if i went back in time and shot Hitler before things got really bad?" Well, that's now. You've arrived at the time travel destination.
I don't really want to live in a world where republicans are shot dead, where the prosecutors putting people in jail for protesting are murdered in their sleep, or where the owners of a factory that pollutes the air we breathe are beaten so badly they'll never walk again. But I also don't want to live in the world those forces will create if left unchecked.
... mehr anzeigen
I think a lot of places that prohibit talking about violence are supporting the horrors. Like, it'd be swell if we could vote ourselves out of this mess but that seems like a long shot, and a lot of damage would be done before that even started to take effect.
I get most of us don't actually want to risk our lives. We don't want to be the one guy who throws a molotov and gets shot by the police.
But shit is really bad, and at the end of all things might makes right. Principles and philosophy don't matter if you're dead.
I think everyone's thought about like "what if i went back in time and shot Hitler before things got really bad?" Well, that's now. You've arrived at the time travel destination.
I don't really want to live in a world where republicans are shot dead, where the prosecutors putting people in jail for protesting are murdered in their sleep, or where the owners of a factory that pollutes the air we breathe are beaten so badly they'll never walk again. But I also don't want to live in the world those forces will create if left unchecked.
Besides, the right has been using stochastic terrorism for years.
I didn't mean to imply I support violence as a first strategy.
I actually wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Partially because the violence against us is coming anyway. It is clearly planned. They are telegraphing what they intend to do, which is criminalize half the country so they can put us to death under the guise of "why couldn't they just follow the law."
That being said, just because the violence is coming doesn't mean inviting it right away is the best solution. The best solutions are the kind you suggest but also using Mutual Aid to develop Parallel Systems.
Parallel systems are simply systems outside of the capitalist mode of production and integration. Providing water, food, medical care, housing, support, and so on. The efforts of the Black Panthers were an exercise in developing parallel systems. The Black Panthers also knew violence was coming which is why a contingent of them were armed. Having such systems in place makes it easier for individuals to survive a long-term General Strike.
The testimony and cross examina
... mehr anzeigen
I didn't mean to imply I support violence as a first strategy.
I actually wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Partially because the violence against us is coming anyway. It is clearly planned. They are telegraphing what they intend to do, which is criminalize half the country so they can put us to death under the guise of "why couldn't they just follow the law."
That being said, just because the violence is coming doesn't mean inviting it right away is the best solution. The best solutions are the kind you suggest but also using Mutual Aid to develop Parallel Systems.
Parallel systems are simply systems outside of the capitalist mode of production and integration. Providing water, food, medical care, housing, support, and so on. The efforts of the Black Panthers were an exercise in developing parallel systems. The Black Panthers also knew violence was coming which is why a contingent of them were armed. Having such systems in place makes it easier for individuals to survive a long-term General Strike.
The testimony and cross examination of undercover officers by Afeni Shakur stands the test of time when she showed that the people pushing violence in the Panthers were undercover police officers:
Shakur got White to admit under oath that he and two other agents had organized most of the unlawful activities. "She asked him if he'd ever seen her carry a gun or kill anyone or bomb anything and he answered no, no, no. Then she asked if he'd seen her doing Panther organizing in a school and a hospital and on the streets and he answered, yes, yes, yes."
We must be prepared to resist the violence that is coming, but to do so without organizing and planning is a fools errand.
Apologies, I accidentally replied to your comment when I'd meant to respond to the commenter you had also responded to. Though I'm somewhat glad I did, as your response here was also excellent :)
i don't know a lot about the history of the black panther movement (not surprising nothing about it was taught to me in school). Infiltration by the government/antagonists is a real concern. As is being murdered like fred hampton. I don't really know how to guard against that. The "They pull a knife you pull a gun. They put one of us in the hospital, you put them in the morque" attitude has bravado, but isn't really safe or sustainable. But on the same time, just being casually murdered isn't either.
We still have, right now, completely un-used tools at our disposal, such as unionizing en masse and deploying a general strike, which is insanely powerful (capable of bringing a nation to its knees if done widely enough), while being far less dangerous and more appealing to the general populace than any other means.
To be clear, I support other options like a general strike and unionizing (though I think forming a union is only a bandaid on top of the evils of capitalism, it's better than nothing).
I don't think "just vote for the democrats in 4 years" is a viable strategy on its own.
But even so, these have to be backed by might. If you do a strike and they send police to do violence to you, you have to be ready to fight back.
I see the workplace benefits of a global union (specifically the IWW) as a bonus, with the real meat being that it teaches people how to organize, and how much power they truly can wield collectively, as many people still feel quite powerless despite the potential they hold, they need only be taught how to use it.
When the Spanish Civil War kicked off, it was the Syndicalist unions (CNT-FAI) that were able to to resist Franco and transform Catalonia when the existing government crumbled. That type of organization doesn't necessarily have to be from a union, but I feel the ability to engage in a general strike would be far more encouraged if people were in a union and became used to flexing that muscle (and build up a strike fund to be able to sustain it) and would drastically help in effectively resisting.
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
It's also important to remember that there is no magic bullet. Nothing is a viable strategy on it's own.
It's my own personal conspiracy theory that our natural hesitance to throw resources at unknown variables is being amplified by the ruling class and fed back to us in the form of the all-or-nothing perfectionism I've seen a lot this past election cycle.
We need to be building with the blocks we have, and Theil et al are using the fear of failure to encourage us to fight each other about whether we should use square blocks or rectangle blocks.
Well said. From my outsider perspective a general strike is ideal for the situation in the US rn. The benefits of a general strike are
1) you can force politicians to pass things they wpuldn't have the initiative to pass themselves (like universal healthcare), as long as you have a manifesto that's surgically precise (eg. with pre-prepared drafts of laws) and you refuse to cease until that manifesto has been passed as law verbatim.
2) it's still fully constitutional. On paper, the politicians came up with these ideas and passed them out of their own volition.
3) the unity & platform created by a general strike would create very good conditions for a 3rd party to have an actual chance of winning seats.
~~All you need is some philanthropist who will create a massive strike fund.~~
Relying on a philanthropist is risky, and possibly unviable if the scale is large enough. Most strike funds are created and maintained using union dues, which would scale up to any size. The unfortunate part is that it generally takes time to fill them, and we're a bit short on that.
Just remember that violence is so often counterproductive to the point where governments intentionally bait or false flag it as a core part of their strategy to take down activist groups. This article focuses on ways people can organize to help each other, rather than assassinations:
Here in New York City, in the week since the inauguration, I’ve seen large groups mobilize to defend migrants from anticipated ICE raids and provide warm food and winter clothes for the unhoused after the city closed shelters and abandoned people in sub-freezing temperatures. Similar efforts are underway in Chicago, where ICE reportedly arrested more than 100 people, and in other cities where ICE has planned or attempted raids, with volunteers assigned to keep watch over key locations where migrants are most vulnerable.
A few weeks earlier, residents created ad-hoc mutual aid distros in Los Angeles to provide food and essentials for those displaced by the wildfires. The coordinated efforts gave Angelenos a lifeline during the crisis, cutting through the false claims spreadin
... mehr anzeigen
Just remember that violence is so often counterproductive to the point where governments intentionally bait or false flag it as a core part of their strategy to take down activist groups. This article focuses on ways people can organize to help each other, rather than assassinations:
Here in New York City, in the week since the inauguration, I’ve seen large groups mobilize to defend migrants from anticipated ICE raids and provide warm food and winter clothes for the unhoused after the city closed shelters and abandoned people in sub-freezing temperatures. Similar efforts are underway in Chicago, where ICE reportedly arrested more than 100 people, and in other cities where ICE has planned or attempted raids, with volunteers assigned to keep watch over key locations where migrants are most vulnerable.
A few weeks earlier, residents created ad-hoc mutual aid distros in Los Angeles to provide food and essentials for those displaced by the wildfires. The coordinated efforts gave Angelenos a lifeline during the crisis, cutting through the false claims spreading on social media about looting and out-of-state fire trucks being stopped for “emissions testing.”
I've been reading a (confusingly named) book, The Anarchist Cookbook, which I think has some strong arguments about this stuff, here is an excerpt:
Solnit’s essay on the Oakland assault on Whole Foods is pertinent here: “This account is by a protestor who also noted in downtown Oakland that day a couple of men with military-style haircuts and brand new clothes put bandanas over their faces and began to smash stuff.” She thinks that infiltrators might have instigated the property destruction, and Copwatch’s posted video seems to document police infiltrators at Occupy Oakland. One way to make the work of provocateurs much more difficult is to be clearly committed to tactics that the state can’t co-opt: nonviolent tactics. If an infiltrator wants to nonviolently blockade or march or take out the garbage, well, that’s useful to us. If an infiltrator sabotages us by recruiting others to commit mayhem, that’s a comment on what such tactics are good for. Solnit quotes Oakland Occupier Sunaura Taylor: “A few people making decisions that affect everyone else is not what revolution looks like; it’s what capitalism looks like.” Peter Marshall’s book on the history of anarchism, Demanding the Impossible, points out that “The word violence comes from the Latin violare and etymologically means violation. Strictly speaking, to act violently means to treat others without respect … A violent revolution is therefore unlikely to bring about any fundamental change in human relations. Given the anarchists’ respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the long run it is nonviolence and not violence which is implied by anarchist values.”
Why is it counter productive? I guess because uninvolved people clutch their pearls and then support the police/capitalists?
The huge support for Luigi makes me think there may be a change in the air. But also that was precisely targeted, not just randomly murdering. If he had set off a bomb and killed 30 people in midtown New York, even if one was a hated CEO, I don't think people would support him.
Here is another excerpt which is more relevant to more extreme acts of political violence, which is referencing this essay:
::: spoiler text
Events in recent years have amply demonstrated the correctness of its main points: 1) That means determine ends—the use of horrifying means guarantees horrifying ends; 2) That urban guerrillaism almost always leads to repression and little else—which makes it very difficult to engage in constructive political work such as organizing and education; 3) That “successful” urban guerrillaism leads to authoritarian outcomes; 4) That these results are determined by the nature of guerrillaism. Guerrillaism relies upon the capitalist media for much of its impact, presenting political acts as spectacles divorced from the day-to-day lives of ordinary people (reducing them to passive spectators), while providing th
... mehr anzeigen
Here is another excerpt which is more relevant to more extreme acts of political violence, which is referencing this essay:
::: spoiler text
Events in recent years have amply demonstrated the correctness of its main points: 1) That means determine ends—the use of horrifying means guarantees horrifying ends; 2) That urban guerrillaism almost always leads to repression and little else—which makes it very difficult to engage in constructive political work such as organizing and education; 3) That “successful” urban guerrillaism leads to authoritarian outcomes; 4) That these results are determined by the nature of guerrillaism. Guerrillaism relies upon the capitalist media for much of its impact, presenting political acts as spectacles divorced from the day-to-day lives of ordinary people (reducing them to passive spectators), while providing the corporate media with a perfect opportunity to frighten the public into the “protective” arms of the state. To put it another way, guerrillas presume to act for the people—attempting to substitute individual acts for mass actions—thus perpetuating the division between leaders and followers (in this case, vanguardists and spectators). While the authors of You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship reject terrorism, it should be emphasized that they are not arguing for political passivity. They are not arguing against the many forms of direct action which form an essential part of any mass movement for fundamental social change. (Examples of such direct action include wildcat strikes, factory occupations, and civil disobedience.) Neither do they discount the quieter but equally essential efforts of those doing educational work. Finally, it should be noted that the authors are not pacifists; they believe that situations may arise in which armed self-defense becomes necessary. :::
So there's a lot of reasons, only one of which is "uninvolved people clutch their pearls" ie. fear is generated and authoritarians get fed political capital to make things worse. There's also direct relevance to the point being made in the OP article: its actual impact focuses on media spectacle, in which most participants are reduced to unconnected spectators. This leads to the narrative ::: spoiler writing itself into a corner:
By the time the drama has become tragedy and the guerrillas lie dead about the stage, the audience of masses finds itself surrounded by barbed wire, and, while it might now feel impelled to take the stage itself, it finds a line of tanks blocking it and weakly files out to remain passive again. Those individuals who continue to object and call on the audience to storm the stage are dragged out, struggling, to the concentration camps. Guerrillaism is in the tradition of vanguardist strategies for revolution. While in general it merely leads to repression, should the strategy succeed it can only produce an authoritarian leftist regime. This is because the people have not moved into the building of a democratic movement themselves. :::
After all, that CEO was replaced immediately, they're still doing the same things, just now a lot of people are having fun posting memes about it, which is cathartic and enjoyable without being difficult or risky or meaningfully improving the situation. It doesn't put them in a position where they have habits and social relationships that would enable them to actually do anything to help each other or exercise direct political involvement. From the OP article:
But when it comes to addressing the problems we face, no amount of posting or passive info consumption is going to substitute the hard, unsexy work of organizing.
That was an interesting read. Thank you. I'll have to do some thinking on it, and read more carefully when I'm not befogged by a head cold.
I still want, like, emotionally, the horrible people to face justice (or at least vengeance), but i can see how that can have myriad unwanted consequences.
Getting people to actually organize is hard. One of the consequences of what Luigi (allegedly) did was people at work started to actually talk about politics, where before it had been a little more gauche (pun intended). Will anything come of it? Probably not.
At that job, I feel like I was planting seeds of radicalization just by talking to people about US history. Several of them hadn't grown up here, and had a very glossy marketing understanding. Just telling them about how like Jim Crow is a thing from living memory, not centuries ago, was eye opening.
Saying sharing info is "at best" a coping mechanism seems a bit silly. With how algorithms keep people locked in their own bubbles, I'd say it's super important to share information you don't think everyone sees.
My mom had no idea about that student that got arrested, for example. I know for a fact most of my friends and family wouldn't know.
I really really really wished that all of the internet were forced to read this entire article or be banned from using it permanently. This shit is written very well and right on the nose.
It's very apparent everyone wants to complain and have someone else do the work for them; everywhere I read across the internet it's lazy as fuck people calling other people to action, including egging any mentally ill people that happen to read their comment to go out and commit crimes for them.
Case-in-point, go to any reddit post and find any of the top voted comment where a leftist is saying "someone needs to stop XYZ politician! " often implying violence when you contextually consider what they are saying.
Go to any post that is summoning Conservatives to answer what they think of the next dogshit Trump decision and why they aren't using Second Amendment rights to eliminate tyrants, forgetting that they, the Democrat poster themselves could also go out and buy a gun and do it themselves.
I have cancer, I have often been open about it here on Lemmy. Several times post-Luigi I was told I should "do some good" and "Luigi myself" since I'm already at risk of dying under this oppressive regime.
Lazy able bodied fucks asking the people who are actually suffering to do their dirty work for them. I remember distinctly saying at one point "Maybe for the first time in history it's time for the able bodied to stand up for the ill, weak, and disabled instead of expecting us to off ourselves since in their eyes we have 'nothing left to lose.'" It's a cruel joke.
Case-in-point, go to any reddit post and find any of the top voted comment where a leftist is saying "someone needs to stop XYZ politician! " often implying violence when you contextually consider what they are saying.
This has been a tactic of the right for decades, earning the moinker of "stochastic terrorism", but it has been very rare on the left.
After Luigi (who isn't a leftist btw.) there has been a bit of an uptick, but it doesn't really work as there isn't an leftist audience that would seriously consider this and has sufficient experience with weapons (so far I guess).
Yep, I kept it in the read it later for long and didn’t regret it.
I can already read some comments in this post from people who probably haven’t read the whole article but just the title. To be fair the title is a bit misleading because it should be more “rageposting or smartassing online won’t make our way out of fascism”
Who knew that changing your profile pictures, sharing hashtags, and finding like minded people in your bubble to doompost with to tell eachother youre right doesn't actually address any real problems. Another way this was described is called the Information–action ratio... Which essentially means "meant to indicate the relationship between a piece of information and what action, if any, a consumer of that information might reasonably be expected to take once learning it"
Back in the day, most news was local which meant that the information you were given could lead to actionable results directly. Now because you have the entire world beamed at you instantly, everyone is bombarded with information where no real action can be taken. This leads to a feeling of helplessness, which in turn causes this cycle of denial and inaction to accelerate. It's all very much an intended effect of the modern news cycle. Over time it leads to a certain collective numbness towards very real issues and in a way kind of normalizes things by making you forget the past. Just think about the m
... mehr anzeigen
Who knew that changing your profile pictures, sharing hashtags, and finding like minded people in your bubble to doompost with to tell eachother youre right doesn't actually address any real problems. Another way this was described is called the Information–action ratio... Which essentially means "meant to indicate the relationship between a piece of information and what action, if any, a consumer of that information might reasonably be expected to take once learning it"
Back in the day, most news was local which meant that the information you were given could lead to actionable results directly. Now because you have the entire world beamed at you instantly, everyone is bombarded with information where no real action can be taken. This leads to a feeling of helplessness, which in turn causes this cycle of denial and inaction to accelerate. It's all very much an intended effect of the modern news cycle. Over time it leads to a certain collective numbness towards very real issues and in a way kind of normalizes things by making you forget the past. Just think about the major stories over the past few months and how many of those are largely gone out of the current narrative. This is all by design and based on years of psychological studies and social engineering.
I don't entirely disagree with your assessment, but at the same time I think you may be overlooking some benefits of at least federated social media.
Mainstream news and corporate social media are omitting more and more information about the world that doesn't benefit their aims. With a keystroke they can kill important news that might incite people to act, while pushing news and ideas that will pacify and normalize what is effectively dystopia.
There are many places in the world where it's difficult to find likeminded folk, such as deeply rural areas in red states. Seeing that there are others out there can be a huge mental relief, and may even help them connect with others to enact direct action with.
Federated Social Media by its nature cannot be controlled for the sake of corporate interests, which is unfortunately a rare trait at this point in time. What this can effectively become is a new Citizen Controlled Media, as described by Noam Chomsky. This will become essential to spreading news of real events and ideas on how to resist while bypassing the corporate filter.
No, but posting can create a community of like-minded individuals who love to punch Nazis. It can also tell you where and when the punching is taking place, and which lawyers to call after the punching has occurred.
It's a call to action, not the action itself, but most action doesn't act unless called upon.
I kinda disagree. Social media, even this very harmless version of it, is great for building opinions. But it's not great at making stuff happen in the real world. I will never meet anyone from Lemmy. It might be comforting to write about guillotines here, posting angry articles, but we in general and especially you Americans need to leave this save zone and actually do something. Fast. With your bodies. In the real world. Show up! Being online is a trap, it makes you feel like you're participating while it eats you time and kills your energy. Greta Thunberg stopped going to school, wrote a sign and sat down.
Get Signal, gather some local people and do stuff.
Edit: I agree it can be a challenge. Showing up and meeting a handful of people in the rain can be frustrating and disappointing. But there is no other way and these are real life experiences you will talk and bond about. Sorry for the pep talk. :)
Edit: I'm not saying you should leave. I love Lemmy! Use it as a tool, not a solution. And a messenger is much more helpful to organize you locally.
Let me put it this way - would you go protest if you weren't sure anyone else were going?
The likely answer is no, especially if it's a protest that would get you arrested.
Social media isn't great, but with the full oligarchical takeover of mass media outlets (Sinclair, Fox), it's become one of the few avenues left for the public to voice (and subsequently act on) dissent.
This is the overall point I'm trying to make - yes, posting won't get the job done, but it can help if you do it right. And without people constantly standing up and speaking out about what's happening, no change is possible.
Because no one wants to be the only person at a protest, and unless other people know its happening, it'll be a party of one.
The 50501 protests have mostly been organized through Social media
Are they working?
is any protest or rally or general strike working? to me looks like they became just another thing
in the past they probably worked because the threat of violence was real, now it's just walking together mostly. If you don't undermine their comforts or their money you can have as many people in the street you want but that's not gonna do anything if it's just showing up once and bye
I can't predict what the outcome will be. It might fizzle out, or it might gather momentum and produce a result.
We've already seen that it seems to be effecting Tesla's stock price. I think either way it's important for people to see others openly defying all this, if only to prevent the chilling effect that Germany seemed to go through by the lack of visible resistance to the Nazis.
imho, you are too deep down into the path to fascism right now. Stock prices won't change the plan of becoming Russia 2.0. Don't need capial market value when you have de facto slaves, oligarch power and isolationist economy.
btw i was talking about "protest or rally or general strike" in general, not only US. In italy they have not much value anymore. Indefinite strikes (i mean "we strike until you give us what you want") and focussed strikes (as in one single company) are the ones that work. + all the little stuff that won't make headlines or virality on social media because ''person convinced their whole department that that thing was bad and they fixed it'' is not cool enough
I'm not trying to suggest that we'll fix anything by lowering the stock price of Tesla, I'm just pointing out that it does seem to be having some measurable effect despite how low the turnouts have been for these protests in comparison to Trump's first term.
Don’t need capial market value when you have de facto slaves, oligarch power and isolationist economy.
Ehh, I can't say I agree with that. If the economy plummets, it would likely help to turn his base against Trump, which as much as I hate having to exist within this economic framework at all, would be a useful thing to happen. Even in Russia, the oligarch's grasp on their power is largely determined by their ability to continue their economic prosperity. If they can't pay the army/police, their tools to control the people are weakened tremendously.
Obviously the U.S. is nowhere near not being able to make those payments currently, but putting the hurt on the US economically, especially if a general strike were to happen as the rest of the world Tariffed us for a sustained per
... mehr anzeigen
I'm not trying to suggest that we'll fix anything by lowering the stock price of Tesla, I'm just pointing out that it does seem to be having some measurable effect despite how low the turnouts have been for these protests in comparison to Trump's first term.
Don’t need capial market value when you have de facto slaves, oligarch power and isolationist economy.
Ehh, I can't say I agree with that. If the economy plummets, it would likely help to turn his base against Trump, which as much as I hate having to exist within this economic framework at all, would be a useful thing to happen. Even in Russia, the oligarch's grasp on their power is largely determined by their ability to continue their economic prosperity. If they can't pay the army/police, their tools to control the people are weakened tremendously.
Obviously the U.S. is nowhere near not being able to make those payments currently, but putting the hurt on the US economically, especially if a general strike were to happen as the rest of the world Tariffed us for a sustained period of time, would either force the government to capitulate or violently end the strike, which I can't imagine would end well for the government.
I got several comments removed and a ban from the Beehaw community for reminding Americans of their first few amendments.
Apparently, Americans won’t even listen to their own country’s constitution. Especially the part that talks about amendments made and rights to be exercised in the event of government tyranny.
Fix your shit because the moment your country crosses the border and starts shit with Canada, it will be open season on every single America.
It’s directly related to the topic of the post. Americans trying to post their way out of their own cultural endpoint and then over-moderating when they don’t like hearing that they may have to get off social media and start taking real action.
Please do inform me of any server rules that this broke. I’m always eager to learn.
Americans trying to post their way out of their own cultural endpoint
Oh i see. I did the post not focussing on americans tbf, i'm not one. The ''i know too much stuff everything is broken'' paralysis given by the social is real in the whole world where social media is present
then over-moderating when they don’t like hearing
ohhh ok
Please do inform me of any server rules that this broke
To me it looked like a non constructive rant born by a recent ban from other places and also ended up with a killing threat on an entire population (open season on every single american)
Yes this is exactly what American threats against Canada’s sovereignty is. They are actively waging economic and information warfare on Canada with the intent on annexation. If you classify Canadians defending their own lives and sovereignty as a “killing threat” then that’s where we fundamentally disagree as I believe people should defend themselves when attacked, not sit there and take it as you suggest.
If you classify Canadians defending their own lives and sovereignty
Bro you are posting on an online forum, you are just ranting and coping. If you wanna take a gun and shoot someone go and do it but don’t write it here
not sit there and take it as you suggest
Sure, I was suggesting exactly that. Not like I was asking you to not wish death on 340mln people
You could ABSOLUTELY have voted your way out. Others have.
You just didn't.
And now you have to dig your way out through other means. The article does contain some interesting examples of how the fascist right seized power in accessible, local platforms. Granted, those will be much harder under the fascist regime you all enabled, but at least it's more practical than "we are cooked".
I firmly believe that no one voted for the "they're eating the dogs" guy, except for the die hards, and this was forced upon us by our adversaries and Elon Musk.
But even if it was, it is remarkable to see how the reaction of the fascists to a similar narrative was to immediately gather to go storm the Capitol, got arrested, put in jail and still their political arm defended them, doubled down on their actions and rallied around them until they won again, then pardoned them all. Meanwhile the US left went "ah, nevertheless" yet again and went home to angrily post about how unfair it all is and how it's definitely, DEFINITELY the Dem's fault and they bear no responsibility or capacity to change anything.
When money-hungry people imitate each other's successful tactics to get more money, it can look like a massive conspiracy to do some other thing. But oligarchs really don't cooperate on that scale. They see each other as competitors, not allies. If one of them proposed locking the populace into an eternal doomscroll to keep them from fighting capitalism, the rest would think, "What's in it for him? How is he trying to take market share away from me?" The vast majority of peasants don't even want to fight capitalism, so it's a non-problem. Some oligarchs might go along hoping to individually get something out of it, but they would think it was just alarmist bullshit that might benefit them.
It's not just the little sum up. Let's look more...
"Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Hannah Arendt warned us that the point of this deluge is not to persuade, but to overwhelm and paralyze our capacity to act." Wrong - persuasion is the exact purpose. Persuading people to donate money, buy more shit, stay brand-loyal... That's why oligarchs spend money on social media. Their alliances with each other are temporary, and meticulously defined to maximize their individual gain. Everything about their behavior says they aren't allies.
“Everything on social media is designed to make you think [you're the main protagonist in a sea of NPCs, from previous paragraph],” said Cross. “It’s all about you—your feed, your network, your friends.” Ahh, okay, so the reason so many people on social media think they're the main character isn't because they already thought that way and the anonymity lets them express themselves more freely. No no, it's because social media is "designed" to make them feel that way. Well alrighty then, more cons
... mehr anzeigen
It's not just the little sum up. Let's look more...
"Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Hannah Arendt warned us that the point of this deluge is not to persuade, but to overwhelm and paralyze our capacity to act." Wrong - persuasion is the exact purpose. Persuading people to donate money, buy more shit, stay brand-loyal... That's why oligarchs spend money on social media. Their alliances with each other are temporary, and meticulously defined to maximize their individual gain. Everything about their behavior says they aren't allies.
“Everything on social media is designed to make you think [you're the main protagonist in a sea of NPCs, from previous paragraph],” said Cross. “It’s all about you—your feed, your network, your friends.” Ahh, okay, so the reason so many people on social media think they're the main character isn't because they already thought that way and the anonymity lets them express themselves more freely. No no, it's because social media is "designed" to make them feel that way. Well alrighty then, more conspiracy. Social media didn't evolve like everything else, somebody had a grand design for it.
Gimme a break. What I feel is that I've spent enough time and effort on this.
you are kinda criticizing the finger that points at the moon (and to be clear, i too disagree with some of the rethorical stuff of the article) but doesn't really make sense to discuss with this:
Gimme a break. What I feel is that I’ve spent enough time and effort on this
Well, you said the little sum-up wasn't the main point of the article, so I took the trouble to bring out a couple parts from the article that I felt say the same thing as the sum-up. Now all you can add is some lyrical bit about a finger pointing at the moon? Alright, have a nice day.
Introducing PedoAI. The first deep learning driven physiognomy model built to distinguish predatory pedophilia, created from a dataset of 1.2 million criminals
I was tempted to write this up for Pivot but fuck giving that blog any sort of publicity.
On the one hand, I can see you not wanting to give the fucker attention, on the other hand, AI's indelible link to fascism is something which needs to be hammered home and shit like this gives you a golden opportunity to do it.
Current “artificial general intelligence” researchers have a repeated habit of using a definition of “intelligence” from psychologist and ardent race scientist Linda Gottfredson. The definition looks innocuous, but was from Gottfredson’s 1994 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” a farrago of race science put forward as a defense of Charles Murray’s book The Bell Curve — signed off by 52 other race scientists, 20 of whom were from the Pioneer Fund.
Gottfredson’s piece was cited in Shane Legg’s Ph.D dissertation “Machine Super Intelligence,” in which he called it “an especially interesting definition as it was given as part of a group statement signed by 52 experts in the field” and that it therefore represented “a mainstream perspective” — an odd way to refer to Pioneer Fund race scientists. Somehow, this passed Legg’s dissertation committee.
The definition made it from Legg’s Ph.D into Micro
... mehr anzeigen
wot i got so far:
Current “artificial general intelligence” researchers have a repeated habit of using a definition of “intelligence” from psychologist and ardent race scientist Linda Gottfredson. The definition looks innocuous, but was from Gottfredson’s 1994 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” a farrago of race science put forward as a defense of Charles Murray’s book The Bell Curve — signed off by 52 other race scientists, 20 of whom were from the Pioneer Fund.
Gottfredson’s piece was cited in Shane Legg’s Ph.D dissertation “Machine Super Intelligence,” in which he called it “an especially interesting definition as it was given as part of a group statement signed by 52 experts in the field” and that it therefore represented “a mainstream perspective” — an odd way to refer to Pioneer Fund race scientists. Somehow, this passed Legg’s dissertation committee.
The definition made it from Legg’s Ph.D into Microsoft and OpenAI’s “Sparks of AGI” paper, and from there to everyone else who copies citations to fill out their bibliography. When called out on this, Microsoft did finally remove the citation.
Hav-Anka
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure und haverholm mögen das.
MrMakabar
Als Antwort auf Hav-Anka • • •mögen das
notsure und haverholm mögen das.
null_dot
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure und haverholm mögen das.
Boxscape
Als Antwort auf null_dot • • •PieMePlenty
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •As a library, you should give me a directory where I can find anything I want. And these topics could be included in that one directory and not singled out in the middle where anyone looking at it can be targeted by some fucking bigot.
MrMakabar
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •PieMePlenty
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •prole
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •meliaesc
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •O_R_I_O_N
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •jjjalljs
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •samus12345
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •Steve
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •Friendly Mod remider to keep our community welcoming to all and please adhere to the guidelines on our main page and engage in discussions without using using sexist terminology.
peto (he/him)
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •And there generally is, most libraries have a catalogue or at least a directory explaining the numbering system at a topic level. Thing is, this sign doesn't just help people come to the library wanting help with these things. It helps people in the library who are experiencing this and didn't know they could find a book to help them.
Hell some people don't even know they need help with these things until someone offers.
mögen das
haverholm mag das.
Womble
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •notsure
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •jckwik
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •It's just the Dewey Decimal System, so you could look up whatever topic you like to find what it would be classified under. There's thousands of topics that are covered here - there's a reason it's used for every non-fiction clarification in a library - that would be far too numerous to list on a single shelf listing. This library has chosen to prioritize the awkward questions as a way to help someone who otherwise may not know how to get help.
Alternatively, most libraries have a catalogue you can search by keyword and it will give you book results which will let you know where they are on the shelves. But again, that requires you to know that the catalogue exists and how to use it. It's always going to be easier to ask a librarian, who can make sure you find something to help.
prole
Als Antwort auf PieMePlenty • • •Deebster
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
notsure
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •zarkanian
Als Antwort auf notsure • • •If libraries didn't already exist, to people in the USA they'd sound like some kind of socialist fever dream.
A place where anybody can go to borrow media for free? Paid with my tax dollars?
mögen das
notsure und haverholm mögen das.
jjjalljs
Als Antwort auf zarkanian • • •mögen das
notsure und haverholm mögen das.
lumony
Als Antwort auf zarkanian • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
notsure
Als Antwort auf zarkanian • • •haverholm
Als Antwort auf notsure • • •notsure
Als Antwort auf haverholm • • •irelephant [he/him]🍭
Als Antwort auf notsure • • •notsure
Als Antwort auf irelephant [he/him]🍭 • • •hdnsmbt
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
meyotch
Als Antwort auf hdnsmbt • • •Here is the canonical list:
merriam-webster.com/
Dictionary by Merriam-Webster
Merriam-WebsterKSP Atlas
Als Antwort auf meyotch • • •RobotToaster
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •Trying to decide which anxiety DDC to look at first would give me anxiety lol.
I had to look it up:
152.4 Psychology > Perception, movement, emotions, drives > Emotions and feelings
155.5 Psychology > Perception, movement, emotions, drives > Psychology of young adults
616.8 Medical sciences and medicine > Diseases > Diseases of the nervous system and mental disorders
Tylerdurdon
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •Lad
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
Favoring9181
Als Antwort auf Lad • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
Lad
Als Antwort auf Favoring9181 • • •FrostyCaveman
Als Antwort auf Favoring9181 • • •Telorand
Als Antwort auf Favoring9181 • • •First of all, that's almost exactly how that conversation would probably go. Librarians are amazing.
Second, contrary to popular belief, masturbation is not recognized as a pathway to addiction by Psychology (neither are porn use and sex).
I know you were just doing the funny, but the internet should stop repeating this baseless idea invented by purity culture fanatics, even in jest.
x00z
Als Antwort auf Telorand • • •Lol, what? You can get addicted to almost anything. Including masturbation.
If you specifically mean "a pathway to addiction" then you misinterpreted the single use of the word "addiction".
Telorand
Als Antwort auf x00z • • •Telorand
Als Antwort auf x00z • • •You cannot "get addicted to almost anything." That's nonsense. The DSM-V does not recognize masturbation, porn use, or sex as causes of addiction. There's no such thing as "porn addiction," for example. On top of that, it's not as if masturbation addiction is a new idea that science has yet to accept—it's the opposite, with psychology recognizing that the concept doesn't hold up to scientific inquiry.
People who compulsively or excessively masturbate almost always have an underlying cause. Masturbating is the symptom of that cause, and addressing the root should bring any excessive behavior into balance.
The issue arises, though, that the internet often thinks that being horny more than their peers means there is something wrong with them. People tell them they're "addicted" to sex, and purity culture spreads in earnest. There's now entire industries that have sprung up based on this pseudoscience, and often because of cultural or religious upbringing, people do not question it.
There's plenty of good resources covering sexual behavior and addiction. As muc
... mehr anzeigenYou cannot "get addicted to almost anything." That's nonsense. The DSM-V does not recognize masturbation, porn use, or sex as causes of addiction. There's no such thing as "porn addiction," for example. On top of that, it's not as if masturbation addiction is a new idea that science has yet to accept—it's the opposite, with psychology recognizing that the concept doesn't hold up to scientific inquiry.
People who compulsively or excessively masturbate almost always have an underlying cause. Masturbating is the symptom of that cause, and addressing the root should bring any excessive behavior into balance.
The issue arises, though, that the internet often thinks that being horny more than their peers means there is something wrong with them. People tell them they're "addicted" to sex, and purity culture spreads in earnest. There's now entire industries that have sprung up based on this pseudoscience, and often because of cultural or religious upbringing, people do not question it.
There's plenty of good resources covering sexual behavior and addiction. As much as I dislike Google, Google Scholar is a good way to find papers and studies on the subject(s).
x00z
Als Antwort auf Telorand • • •Freewheel
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
Itdidnttrickledown
Als Antwort auf Freewheel • • •Freewheel
Als Antwort auf Itdidnttrickledown • • •Remy Rose
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
maiskanzler
Als Antwort auf Remy Rose • • •JollyBrancher
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •Yeahhh we're gonna need a 741.6 as well...
But for real, things like this are great.
Local elections ALWAYS matter. Just an unfortunately large amount more than ever.
mögen das
notsure mag das.
Optional
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
tigeruppercut
Als Antwort auf Optional • • •Library of Congress is better because all bible classifications start with the letters BS. Also Melvil Dewey sucked
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvil_D…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_…
system of library classification developed by the United States Library of Congress
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)mögen das
notsure mag das.
Optional
Als Antwort auf tigeruppercut • • •FooBarrington
Als Antwort auf Optional • • •answersplease77
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •O_R_I_O_N
Als Antwort auf answersplease77 • • •dmention7
Als Antwort auf answersplease77 • • •The internet is full of bullshit advice (ESPECIALLY around sex and health issues). Doctors and therapists cost money, and frankly aren't the best way to just get basic facts and education.
My small local library has kiosks near the exits where you can check out a book completely unassisted. I could walk in, pick out the most embarrassing book, check it out, and nobody would ever have to know.
Thanks to a sign like this, someone who didn't know the library had such resources, and/or was too embarrassed to ask, has a better chance of accessing that info. And they also know that the library staff WANTS them to be able to access that info, further reducing any stigma they might feel.
PM_Your_Nudes_Please
Als Antwort auf answersplease77 • • •Kids/teens whose at-home internet usage is monitored by strict parents, and who can’t seek therapy without their parents’ consent/knowledge. The parents may even be complicit in/perpetrators of the rape.
Domestic abuse victims who live with their abuser.
Homeless who can’t regularly afford internet access or a therapist. Many homeless people regularly rely on public libraries for internet access, and are common victims of rape and abuse. So why not direct them to other resources while they’re there?
Elderly victims, who still fall back to books instead of the internet, and who grew up with a heavy stigma surrounding therapy. Elder abuse is a very common problem, as they’re often a very vulnerable demographic with few friends and limited mobility.
People who just like to read. For many people, books are a source of comfort. Not everything has to be done on a smartphone or desktop.
Just to name a few…
answersplease77
Als Antwort auf PM_Your_Nudes_Please • • •😈MedicPig🐷BabySaver😈
Als Antwort auf answersplease77 • • •x00z
Als Antwort auf answersplease77 • • •You're a troll, but I'll entertain you. "Books about rape or HIV" can also be books that are meant to be an emotional help instead of just a book with facts.
Some examples for books about rape:
- I Have Been Raped, Now What? by Susan Henneberg
- Sexual Assault: The Ultimate Teen Guide by Olivia Ghafoerkhan
- Shout! by Laurie Halse Anderson
- Strong at the Heart: How It Feels to Heal from Sexual Abuse by Carolyn Lehman
Books such as these are meant to help against the trauma.
O_R_I_O_N
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •raptir
Als Antwort auf O_R_I_O_N • • •MoreFPSmorebetter
Als Antwort auf O_R_I_O_N • • •Echo Dot
Als Antwort auf MoreFPSmorebetter • • •It isn't comic sans though. It looks sort of like comic sans but it's much cleaner.
It's difficult to tell really because the quality the image isn't best but if you zoom in there's quite a lot of variation of the same letter form so it's an adaptive font.
Look at the two L's in bullying. They're not the same both times and the two t's in cutting merge into each other but not any of the other characters. So there's some custom letter forms going on there which comic sands doesn't support.
MoreFPSmorebetter
Als Antwort auf Echo Dot • • •I see what you're saying... It's still comic sans adjacent and it bugs me.
My father uses it on everything and he teaches 1st grade so I just associate comic sans with kids. I used to help out a lot in his classroom growing up.
Seeing stuff like "rape" written in a font that my brain has tied to small children is unpleasant.
MorukDilemma
Als Antwort auf O_R_I_O_N • • •jia_tan
Als Antwort auf O_R_I_O_N • • •samus12345
Als Antwort auf O_R_I_O_N • • •CheeseToastie
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
stebo
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
Echo Dot
Als Antwort auf stebo • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
suoko
Als Antwort auf stebo • • •His kindle account...
RabbitBBQ
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •It's an outdated idea, somewhere a human can exist without having to spend money.
mögen das
notsure mag das.
toynbee
Als Antwort auf RabbitBBQ • • •I took my young kid to a recent library event - the first time I've been to a library in several years, to be honest - and overheard the organizer (or leader or whatever) of the event saying "that's why we're here: to give people somewhere safe they can have entertainment for free."
I didn't have much in the way of an opinion on that person prior to that, positive or negative, but I respected the hell out of them after hearing them say that.
mögen das
notsure mag das.
TheHottyOney
Als Antwort auf RabbitBBQ • • •stebo
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
webpack
Als Antwort auf stebo • • •childOfMagenta
Als Antwort auf stebo • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
BorgDrone
Als Antwort auf stebo • • •library classification system
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)RememberTheApollo_
Als Antwort auf BorgDrone • • •The Racist Undertone of the Dewey Decimal System
BookClubzerofk
Als Antwort auf stebo • • •Ah Lemmy, downvoting an honest question. Daddy Reddit would be proud.
Upvoted to offset the stupidity.
mögen das
notsure mag das.
Hupf
Als Antwort auf zerofk • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
DragonOracleIX
Als Antwort auf zerofk • • •LifeInMultipleChoice
Als Antwort auf DragonOracleIX • • •samus12345
Als Antwort auf stebo • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
Daryl
Als Antwort auf stebo • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
stebo
Als Antwort auf Daryl • • •Gestrid
Als Antwort auf Daryl • • •- YouTube
youtu.beDaryl
Als Antwort auf Gestrid • • •Gestrid
Als Antwort auf Daryl • • •Daryl
Als Antwort auf Gestrid • • •Gestrid
Als Antwort auf Daryl • • •Boost for Lemmy - Apps on Google Play
play.google.comDaryl
Als Antwort auf Gestrid • • •nicwill
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
unbanshee
Als Antwort auf nicwill • • •We do deserve librarians.
For people dealing with or processing systemic trauma, this directory isn't a luxury or a stretch goal feature, it's an essential accessibilty feature.
There are a few things I'd add to that list, like burnout, disability, and neurodivergence, but it's a good start.
We gotta raise the bar, it's been in hell for too long now.
theblips
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •mögen das
notsure mag das.
lumony
Als Antwort auf theblips • • •Perhaps. It is kind of nice to know that a lot of the drivel we read on these forums doesn't necessarily translate to how people behave in the real world.
I've gotten way better at identifying users whose brains are "shot" from spending too much time on social media. At some point, I've realized I may as well not be discussing with a human; they're walking memes.
mögen das
notsure mag das.
xia
Als Antwort auf theblips • • •John-Mark Gurney
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •#AltText
Sign at end of library shelf:
Nervous about asking
ABORTION 363.46
ABUSE 362.76
ALCOHOL 362.29, 813.81
ANXIETY 152.46, 155.5, 616.85 BULLYING 303.69
CANCER 616.99
CHILD CUSTODY 343.73 CUTTING/SELF HARM 616.85 DEPRESSION 616.85
DIVORCE 306.89
DRUGS 362.29, 613.8
EATING DISORDERS 616.85
HIV/AIDS 616.97
LOSS OF A PARENT 306.87, 155.9
MENTAL ILLNESS 616.89
POST TRAMATIC STRESS 616.85
PREGNANCY 306.87, 618.2
RAPE 362.88
SELF-ESTEEM 185.1, 305.23 SEX 613.9
STIs 616.95
1/2
mögen das
notsure mag das.
John-Mark Gurney
Als Antwort auf John-Mark Gurney • • •SUICIDE 362.28, 616.85
As a library, we're not here to judge, we're here to help
2/2
@MrMakabar
#AltText
mögen das
notsure mag das.
damdy
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •/home/pineapplelover
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •trolololol
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •ceiphas
Als Antwort auf trolololol • • •suoko
Als Antwort auf MrMakabar • • •