jadero

I cannot know your experience and won’t pretend to.

Unless your objective is to be even more disliked and disrespected than you are now, being deliberately annoying will not get you far.

If you just want respect as a thinking, feeling human, you’re going to have to be respectful of other thinking, feeling humans, ignoring and blocking those who are too immature to have respect for others.

There are people out there who think that power is the source of respect. They are, of course, wrong. The only path to respect is through the elimination of power structures, so that respect can be mutually sought through understanding, not obedience.

I don’t like assholes, so I don’t seek them out. I try to give the assholes who engage with me the respectful engagement they crave but don’t deserve, then block the ones who stay assholes. If I feel surrounded by assholes, I disengage completely until I’ve figured out whether I’m actually the asshole or I’ve stumbled into a snakepit. (And everybody is sometimes an asshole. The secret is to not make it part of your identity or to assume that it’s part of theirs.)

Life is so much more pleasant when disagreements are respectful engagements with learning opportunities instead of just screaming matches.

Good luck on your journey.

Like this?. We just need more people and governments on board.

Tell me again why it’s okay to publish this tripe. It’s no wonder that so many women think men are pigs.

I think that the active participation of members is how we get strong communities. One way to be an active participant is to take responsibility for what you want to see. If you don’t like the bot, block it.

This is analogous to walking out of a movie you dislike rather than calling for it to be banned.

As far as I can tell, it’s not breaking any terms of service or policy. That doesn’t mean that terms of service and policy can’t be modified, but that should be done only to address general principles, not specific cases. (Although it may be that a specific case makes obvious the need for change.)

Then I guess that’s at least 2 of us on the same page :)

I would hate to see it filled with commercial interests, but I think there is room for some that is relevant within specific communities.

I think there must be a happy medium somewhere. I hate surveillance ads as much as the next person and blatant, “pure” self-promotion is a pretty close second, but there are forms of advertising and self-promotion that are useful.

There was a magazine I subscribed to called “Small Craft Advisor” that covered the small boat market, frequently homebuilt, mostly sailing, mostly cruising (like camping, but from or on a boat). The main reason I maintained the subscription was for the ads and the articles written by various suppliers describing how to use their products and showcasing their offerings in detail. Now that they’ve gone Substack, those ads and most of the “vendor articles” are gone and I’m dropping the subscription. It just doesn’t provide my window into the hobby, its supplies and techniques, and suppliers that it used to.

I also remember when there was such a thing as computer magazines that were similar in format and similarly valuable.

The mobile client I’m using, Liftoff, does an excellent job of both account and instance switching.

this comment changed my mind. In a nutshell, if we can’t keep a large instance controlled by “the enemy” from destroying what we’ve got, then we just have to do better next time.

Yes, I’ve started looking for instances that I think represent the “natural home” for communities I’m interested in. For example, I was subscribed to a lemmy.world community for the go programming language. Then I discovered the programming.dev instance. They also host a go programming community, so I switched.

Then I realized that I was likely to join a bunch of communities on that instance, so I just joined the instance directly. I think that reduces the federation burden, but it also helps me manage my personal feed because now things are grouped by more general categories.

The only thing I don’t like about doing things that way is the multiple inboxes. It would be nice if the client would collect all the inboxes into one.

Every network that wants to stay decentralized has to guard against anyone gaining a controlling interest.

Once an instance gets big enough, it generates a kind of gravity, attracting not just the majority of new users, but tempting everyone else. And a few years or decades down the line, we end up with a centralized service. History has shown that anyone with the capacity to be a controlling interest eventually exercises that control to serve its own ends.

I don’t know if anyone is discussing the potential problems of existing good-faith instances becoming too large, but I think we should be. A Meta controlled instance would instantaneously dwarf any existing instance and maybe the totality of all instances.

I think that ChatGPT is probably the wrong tool for what I’m imagining. I’m thinking more in terms of “hypothesis generators” and “theorem testers” that, as far as I know, are not using the methods of ChatGPT in their operation. I think that those kinds of tools and others like them could be used to help clarify requirements before coding even starts.

Ah, I understand now. Yes, I think that maybe I agree with you in general.

I still think that AI operated by ethical experts has much to offer when used not an automated replacement, but as a tool that can save time and help verify accuracy. I’m thinking in terms of a kind of teamwork where one member of the team is an AI system or assistant.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think I was not clear in my presentation of the domain of operations. I was not speaking to the rewriting of an existing system, but if gathering requirements for a system that is intended to replace existing manual systems or to create systems for brand new tasks.

That is, there is no existing code to work with, or at least nothing that is fit for purpose. Thus, you are starting at the beginning, where people have no choice but to describe something they would like to have.

Your reference to hallucination leads me to think that you are limiting your concept of AI to the generative large language models. There are other AI systems that operate on different principles. I was not suggesting that a G-LLM was the right tool for the job, only that AI could be brought to bear in analyzing requirements and specifications.

I think he’s missed a potential benefit of AI.

He seems to be speaking mostly of greenfield development, the creation of something that has never been done before. My experience was always in the field of “computerizing” existing manual processes.

I agree with him regarding the difficulty of gathering requirements and creating specifications that can be turned into code. My experience working as a solo programmer for tiny businesses (max 20 employees) was that very few people can actually articulate what they want and most of those that can don’t actually know what they want. The tiny number of people left miss all the hacks that are already baked into their existing processes to deal with gaps, inconsistencies, and mutually contradictory rules. This must be even worse in greenfield development.

That is not saying anything negative. If it were any other way, then they would have had success hiring their nephew to do the work. :)

Where I think AI could useful during that phase of work is in helping detect those gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictory rules. This would clearly not be the AI that spits out a database schema or a bit of Python code, but would nonetheless be AI.

We have AI systems that are quite good at summarizing the written word and other AI systems that are quite good at logical analysis of properly structured statements. It strikes me that it should be possible to turn the customers’ system descriptions into something that can be checked for gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Working iteratively, alone at the start, then with expert assistance, to develop something that can be passed on to the development team.

The earlier the flaws can be discovered and the more frequently that the customer is doing the discovery, the easier those flaws are to address. The most successful and most enjoyable of all my projects were those where I was being hired explicitly to help root out all those flaws in the semi-computerized system they had already constructed (often enough by a nephew!).

I’m not talking about waterfall development, where everything is written in stone before coding starts. Sticking with water flow metaphors, I’m talking about a design and development flow that has fewer eddies, fewer sets of dangerous rapids, and less backtracking to find a different channel.

If I understand the intent and the discussion so far, it seems that you could stop after “No Editorializing Article Titles.” There are lots of ways to edit a title without editorializing.

The discussion makes me think that the words “editing” and “editorializing” are being treated as interchangeable, so a clarifying sentence or two may be necessary.

“Editing the title for clarity and other purposes is fine. Editing the title to express or alter an opinion is not.”

And I agree with what seems to be a popular opinion that leaves actual implementation and enforcement to individual communities and their moderators.

Note: I find “moderation theory,” if such a thing exists, a fascinating topic, but do not yet moderate any community, mostly because it looks like a scary job. I just try to abide by whatever community standards I find and leave communities whose standards stray too far from my own.

I deleted everything a couple of weeks ago. I verified that it was gone, both logged in and logged out on a different network.

I then deleted my account.

Then a few days ago, I followed up on a rumour that Reddit was restoring deleted content and found that at least some of my content was back, albeit with no username.

But, and here is the interesting part, using a search engine to search my username on Reddit took me to content I had deleted, even though the UI still showed [deleted] for the username. Of course, that could be some kind of search engine caching, not an invisible association with a supposedly deleted account.

It’s entirely possible that I’m doing something wrong or misinterpreting something, but maybe take deletion with a grain of salt without invoking one of the associated laws available in some jurisdictions.

I’m torn.

Yes, article summaries can be nice, and often demonstrate just how unnecessarily wordy the original is.

On the other hand, not needing to follow links to the original is at least part of what’s killing original creators, especially journalists and their outlets. As much as we dislike ads, subscriptions, and requests for donations, those are what fund the sources we most cherish.

Yes, and thanks!

Yeah, I’m not a fan of the form of capitalism that’s about selling what they want us to buy instead of what we want to buy, but it seems to be working for pretty much every company out there.

I guess we missed our window of opportunity with Netflix. We moved to the middle of nowhere with no internet or cell service 12 years ago. We’ve had Starlink for nearly 2 years and are just starting to run out of stuff available for free on our Roku. It’s been a couple of decades since I played with, um, other options, but I somehow doubt it’s become more difficult. :)

Former water treatment plant operator. Thanks for living up to your name.