“Your claim is only valid if you first run this elaborate, long-term experiment that I came up with.”

The world isn’t binary. When someone says less moderation, they don’t mean no moderation. Framing it as all-or-nothing just misrepresents their view to make it easier for you to argue against. CSAM is illegal, so it’s always going to be against the rules - that’s not up to Google and is therefore a moot point.

As for other content you ideologically oppose, that’s your issue. As long as it’s not advocating violence or breaking the law, I don’t see why they’d be obligated to remove it. You’re free to think they should - but it’s their platform, not yours. If they want to allow that kind of content, they’re allowed to. If you don’t like it, don’t go there.

You don’t get notified if the channel owner deletes your comment.

I agree. There just seem to be a fairly widespread pro-censorship sentiment among Lemmy users, usually driven by the desire to block speech that could be harmful to marginalized groups - but in practice, it often extends to broadly silencing all ideas they disagree with. The strawman here tends to be that anyone who wants more free speech just wants to shout slurs and spread (in their view) objectively harmful ideas.

That’s a bit different than using chatGPT in what is effectively a one-on-one interview. This isn’t about writing a job application. It’s about someone asking you a question and instead of you answering it you make chatGPT to answer it for you.

This decision makes sense to me.

It only makes sense if you yourself are being paid by lobbyists.

I can’t read it in any other way than as him calling the previous poster a paid lobbyist.

The Bible tends to contradict itself time and time again, so you can use it to justify just about any interpretation. In Luke 22:36, Jesus tells his disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” We can probably agree that if Jesus lived in the 21st century, it wouldn’t be a sword he’d tell them to buy.

You seriously think anti-weed (or whatever) lobbyists are being paid to comment on Lemmy? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re implying - discrediting the person for who they supposedly are, not for what they’re actually saying.

That’s usually interpreted to mean how you respond to personal insults - by not escalating the situation. It doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to defend yourself from violence. You’re also expected to protect the people close to you.

Good point. North Korea is quite stable.

Doesn’t take much to get labeled far right these days.

It’s such a massive platform that managing the flood of spam accounts must be nearly impossible - but they’re still trying. I think it’s kind of like how AI got so good at solving captchas that they had to make them too difficult for even humans to figure out. I’m guessing the system they use is probably fully automated. Someone creating a new account likely behaves very differently from a genuine new user, so people like that get flagged. I don’t think you’re shadowbanned from the entire platform - some subs just let you post without notifying you that your posts aren’t visible to anyone.

My argument against capital punishment is that no legal system is foolproof and some number of innocent people are going to get locked up no matter what. That is aready unacceptable in itself but the idea of sentencing someone to death who hasn’t done anything wrong is the greatest injustice I can think of.

And I swear to god if you say the phrase “high value men” I’m going to laugh until I lose consciousness.

I don’t see what this has to do with anything I said.

No, I don’t want the commitment. I’m used to living my life in a way that lets me do what I want, when I want. I definitely feel a kind of melancholy when I see dads with their young kids, but I just don’t think it’s for me - and luckily, my partner feels the same about herself.

Unless you want to rely on luck, investing is all about starting early. You simply can’t catch up to someone who began in their early twenties unless you have a spare $500,000 to start with. On top of that, you’d need a wage and lifestyle that allow you to consistently invest several hundred dollars every month for decades. It’s never too late to start - but unfortunately, in your case, it’s too late to “make a bank” unless you’re willing to take a gamble.

I really feel this. I’ve said versions of this before in other threads, so I won’t repeat it all again - but suffice it to say I’ve had the same experience more times than I can count. The problem isn’t just the occasional jerk; it’s the tone of the platform as a whole. There’s this ever-present undercurrent of smugness, snide one-liners, and tribal hostility and gate-keeping that makes it feel like you’re either on the inside of the joke, or you’re the joke.

It’s exhausting. And the irony is, like you pointed out, everyone here talks about wanting an alternative to Reddit, but then they turn around and make this place even worse in all the same ways - just smaller, more insular, and with more groupthink.

I don’t blame you one bit for feeling the way you do.

Removed by mod

Will Storr - The Status Game: On Human Life and How to Play It: On Social Position and How We Use it

That’s because it is.

The term artificial intelligence is broader than many people realize. It doesn’t mean human-level consciousness or sci-fi-style general intelligence - that’s a specific subset called AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). In reality, AI refers to any system designed to perform tasks that would typically require human intelligence. That includes everything from playing chess to recognizing patterns, translating languages, or generating text.

Large language models fall well within this definition. They’re narrow AIs - highly specialized, not general - but still part of the broader AI category. When people say “this isn’t real AI,” they’re often working from a fictional or futuristic idea of what AI should be, rather than how the term has actually been used in computer science for decades.

Different definitions for intelligence:

• The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
• the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.
• the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
• the act of understanding
• the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason
• It can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

We have plenty of intelligent AI systems already. LLM’s probably fit the definition. Something like Tesla FSD definitely does.