MountingSuspicion

Every single LLM should have a disclaimer on every page and potentially in every response that it is making things up, is not sentient, and just playing mad libs. If they had a "conversation" and every response ended with "THE CONTENTS OF THE RESPONSE ARE NOT VERIFIED AND ARE ENTIRELY MADE UP ON THE SPOT FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND HAS NO RELATION TO REALITY" or some other thing it might not get as far. Would some people ignore it? Yea, sure, but the companies are selling AI like it's a real thinking entity with a name. It's going to happen that the marketing works on someone.

I'm not saying that's the specific answer, but it should be made overwhelmingly clear that AI is not real right on the page. The same with AI video and audio. Education won't help kids who haven't had AI safety class yet, or adults who never had it, or people who slept through the class, or people who moved here and didn't have access to the education where they grew up. Education is important, but the fact you think regulation won't help at all seems dismissive.

Yea, that's my point. If someone has certain tendencies, education might not help. Your solution of more education is not going to stop this. There needs to be regulation and safeguards in place like the commenter above mentioned.

Education might help somewhat, but unfortunately education doesn't in itself protect from delusion. If someone is susceptible to this, it could happen regardless of education. A Google engineer believes an AI (not AGI just an LLM) is sentient. You can argue the definition of sentience in a philosophical manner if you want, but if a Google engineer believes it, it's hard to argue more education will solve this. If you think it's equivalent to a person who has access to privileged information, and that it tells you it was tasked to do harm, I'm not sure what else you should do with that.

She's using her position to educate, raise awareness, and validate the alarm several people are feeling. This is possibly the most impactful thing she can do at the moment. She is standing up and pointing out fascism. I guess she could stay after having done that, but then you get people going "if it's so bad then why don't you leave?!" And then she's at even more risk of being disappeared. She is uprooting her family and life and in the process displaying how sincerely she believes that we're headed down the wrong path. Is she doing it for her own benefit, yea, sure, but this article imho is more impactful than her going to a protest. I've sent it to some of my more normie friends already because we were just talking about this and they really don't realize how bad things are already. They think I'm fear mongering. This article might help people realize what the reality is and take direct action that they didn't think was necessary at this point. Is it cowardly to leave? Maybe. But she didn't have to speak out, she could have left quietly, but she chose to make a statement. That's more than a lot of people will end up doing, regardless of if they stay or not.

There were a lot of articles that came out when the first trial was happening wherein adults spoke about how being sent to boarding school in Africa actually saved their life. I don't know the situation those people were in as children, and I don't know the situation this family is in, but I find it hard to believe that absence from family who love and support you is somehow the best way to keep someone from being involved in gang activity. It's possible that it keeps him out of trouble, but I can't imagine the harm this is doing to him and his relationship with his parents in the long term. I don't know what the "right" answer is in situations where a child needs more care than the family can provide, but I want to believe that there are better options.

"Det Con Linge previously said Child Q had consented to the search, but admitted under cross-examination by Mr Gold that this was not accurate"

So they lied. They are a liar and they traumatized a child.

"Mr Gold asked whether she would accept that "a stereotype of black people is they may more likely be stopped and searched" and if she would accept that they are more likely to be "in receipt of use of force by police".

Det Con Linge replied "no" to both questions.

The 46-year-old agreed there was no adult present in the room where the search happened who could have offered the child advice, assisted her in communication with police or ensured her rights were respected.

Det Con Linge also denied she "did not recognise Child Q as a child" and was, in effect, "treating her as older than she was"."

I'm so sorry for this poor girl, but I'm infuriated that these people are putting her through the trauma of this when they KNOW they are in the wrong. She needs justice. How any of these people still have jobs is beyond me.

I guess this section seems to indicate otherwise: "Like everyone else, you see issues in your environment - but unlike most people, you actually try to understand them and find solutions. And for that, you get nothing but pain."

But I will take you at your word that you were more commiserating than directly agreeing. The internet in general is leading to more tribalism, sure, but I'm not seeing it any more on Lemmy than I am elsewhere. Mostly seeing it as it relates to politics. Would you mind sharing where you're seeing that? Have you noticed specific communities or instances or topics? I follow a variety of content and it's mostly pretty chill people with some political vitriol sprinkled in for novelty sake.

I don't know if you're a guy, but honestly really amazing display of allyship right here. Regardless, congrats on explaining things so succinctly. This is exactly correct.

Where's the "sells you the cure meme" when you need it? Whoever prescribed the meds is just as capable of helping you taper off them. Weird that they didn't note how many people abruptly stop due to change in or loss of insurance.

But their comment objectively is less productive than the "angry posts", because their comment was against the rules and deleted and not engaged with, whereas the "angry posts" are there for the community to engage with and offer sympathy and understanding and a place to vent. It's a kind of weird martyr complex that nobody asked for. Oh, woe is me, I got banned for breaking the rules! Why even comment in the first place if you knew it was going to be deleted? Elsewhere someone provided context that they did not comment on a "Meta" post. It was just a post complaining about how people treat the community. It was not at all soliciting advice or external opinions. They then went out of their way to break the rules and essentially prove the post right. Essentially showing that they think they are above the rules and that their opinion deserves to be heard regardless of what the user or the mods or the community has already expressed. Saying he was somehow "starting a discussion" makes no sense considering he knew that he would get banned and his comment removed. That was neither the time nor place to start any kind of discussion, and quite frankly I don't think somebody attempting to have a good faith discussion would have it in that manner. If a transphobe went into a trans space that explicitly did not allow transphobes, and made a comment lamenting that they can't ask questions in that community, would you still feel similarly? They just "see a wrong" in the world and are trying to start a discussion about it. Or would you think that it is OK for some spaces to have rules that are not up for discussion, especially within that space?

He might not have known that he would be getting banned from other subs, but as a user of several subs, I fully support admins taking steps to block people who willingly break rules of other marginalized communities. I think reasonable minds can disagree on this last point, but blahaj is pretty famous for being strict with bans even if not on the community/instance in question and the users of that instance actually really like that. I don't know if this will be escalated, or if the ban will even stay in place, but my understanding is that people like that instance specifically because the mods there are so vigilant.

I'm not trying to get into an argument here, and based on your one sentence response, it seems like you're not either, but angry posts in general don't mean anything. I see a lot of angry posts about healthcare or the government or the increasing descent into fascism, and if somebody commented on any of those that they didn't like seeing it, I wouldn't necessarily think that comment was productive. Posts are allowed to be angry because people are allowed to be angry. Especially about injustice and oppression, which I imagine a lot of the "angry posts" are actually about, considering it's a community of marginalized people for marginalized people. Just something to think about.

Thank you so much for providing that context. It is so funny that they said that their original post is in good faith, when even this post describing the situation isn't in good faith.