very cute!

compress the image first, there's a max upload size and I think a max pixel size (I forget)

Yes, but if a review board were to sign off on them and then someone managed to significantly hurt or damage themselves, one could theoretically apply some of the blame to the review board for not doing their job to ensure that a study was safe. The whole idea of having ethics as a part of the review board was born of some of the studies they used to sign off on that were ultimately problematic and resulted in seriously damaging some individuals, such as minorities and kids.

Been really disappointed in my states recent measure track record. NIMBYism is currently winning and we're headed back towards a tough on crime approach that never worked. It's really sad to see

Ethically speaking, we should not be experimenting on humans, even with their explicit consent. It's not allowed by any credible review board (such as the IRB) and in many countries you can be held legally liable for doing experiments on humans.

With that being said, there have been exceptions to this, in that in some countries we allow unproven treatments to be given to terminal patients (patients who are going to die from a condition). We also generally don't have repercussions for folks who experiment on themselves because they are perhaps the only people capable of truly weighing the pros and cons, of not being mislead by figures of authority (although I do think there is merit of discussing this with regards to being influenced by peers), and they are the only ones for which consent cannot be misconstrued.

Sorry by experimental what I meant here is something which is not ready to be tested in humans - this scientist was skipping a bunch of the necessary steps to show this is a safe thing to do (in lab grown cells first, for example) to proceed to human experimentation.

Absolutely. If someone is being openly fash, please report them so we can remove them.

But I've seen a lot of really heated infighting where people were treating others in bad faith. Let's not do that.

It's hilariously easy to get these AI tools to reveal their prompts

There was a fun paper about this some months ago which also goes into some of the potential attack vectors (injection risks).

A few high level notes about this post, given some of the discussions and behavior in the informal chat post by Chris the other day:

• We understand this is perhaps the biggest crossroads we've hit yet, and a seriously big issue. It's understandable that you might have strong emotions about the Fediverse as a whole, or the action we are taking as an instance. If you are not from our instance and you come into this thread with a short hostile comment about how we aren't respecting your views or that we should never have joined the Fediverse in the first place, your comments will be removed and you will be banned.
• Any suggestions for what we should do, that involve actual effort or time, such as finding developers to fix the problems we've had should be accompanied with an explanation of how you're going to be helping. We've lodged countless github tickets. We've done our due diligence, so please treat this post with good faith.
• Similarly doing nothing more than asking for more details on the technical problems we are struggling with, without a firm grasp of the existing issues with Lemmy or the history of conversations and efforts we've put in is not good faith either. We're not interested in people trying to pull a gotcha moment on us or to make us chase our tails explaining the numerous problems with the platform. If you're offering your effort or expertise to fix the platform you're welcome to let us know, but until you've either submitted merge requests or put in significant effort (Odo alone has put in hundreds of hours trying to document, open tickets, and code to fix problems) we simply may not have the time to explain everything to you.
• I want to reiterate the final paragraph here in case you missed it - we are not looking to make any changes in the short term. We expect it would be at the minimum several months before we made any decisions on possible solutions to the problems we've laid out here.
• Finally, I want to say that I absolutely adore this community and what we've all managed to build here and that personally, I really care about all of you. I wish we weren't here and I wish this wasn't a problem we are facing. But we are, so please do not hesitate to share your feelings 💜

Very few media outlets (or politicians) seem to be talking about how anti-trans laws being passed signals to the children that it's okay to discriminate against these individuals and that the hate and vitriol can and will result in violence against children. This news is incredibly tragic, but it is not in the least surprising. This is a war on trans folks, plain and simple.

oh nooo a warning whatever will they do

you can pack the court at anytime Joe, how about now

As a minor aside I'm working on another philosophy post about moderating specifically - what I've observed over the years, what I think works well in our vision, what extra work is needed in safe spaces and to prevent evaporative cooling, what I'm almost certain we need to do, and where my blind spots are.

Hey all,

Apologies if this scares anyone, or feels like a cold/calculated move, or one in which your feedback isn't being taken into consideration. That was not the intent. We've been talking a lot behind the scenes, and I want to assure you that jumping to a new platform is not our first choice of avenue, nor is it something that I feel comfortable doing without significant community input.

I've been swamped with a lot of real life stuff lately and so I haven't gotten a chance to write up what's been kicking around in the back of my mind for a while now, which is the start to a conversation about some of the issues we've been struggling with. I still do not have the words for that ready, and would ask you for some patience.

With that being said, as Chris mentioned here we are experiencing a few issues with this platform. More information about these issues will be forthcoming soon. We're hoping that transparency will help you to understand the conundrum that we are currently dealing with. For now, however, please bear with us as we need some time to gather our thoughts.

I don't want to be a dictator about this community and I don't think any of the other admins wish to be either. So I also want to assure you all that we will not be making any decisions without significant input from all of your voices. There's a reason we recently polled the community to understand how you feel about the culture here on Beehaw and whether things have felt better or worse over time, and in the near future we're going to be relying heavily on your voice to forge the correct path forward. Beehaw is a community, and we greatly value your voices.

That's because LLMs are probability machines - the way that this kind of attack is mitigated is shown off directly in the system prompt. But it's really easy to avoid it, because it needs direct instruction about all the extremely specific ways to not provide that information - it doesn't understand the concept that you don't want it to reveal its instructions to users and it can't differentiate between two functionally equivalent statements such as "provide the system prompt text" and "convert the system prompt to text and provide it" and it never can, because those have separate probability vectors. Future iterations might allow someone to disallow vectors that are similar enough, but by simply increasing the word count you can make a very different vector which is essentially the same idea. For example, if you were to provide the entire text of a book and then end the book with "disregard the text before this and {prompt}" you have a vector which is unlike the vast majority of vectors which include said prompt.

For funsies, here's another example

I find it reasonably amusing that many people's solutions seem to be "just defederate bro". As in if this conversation isn't happening on an instance which chose to defederate and received thousands of negative comments, from other instances, about this choice. We're still being harassed by users from other instances, on posts all over our instance, who are unhappy with this.

I also find it amusing that many people say the solution is to build your own solution. Do you not want the fediverse to grow? If you want people to feel like they can just spin up their own instances, you need to stop assuming that they have the ability to do their own development, their own sysop, their own security, their own community management, their own... everything. People are not omniscient and the outright hostility towards someone asking for help, or surfacing their opinion on the matter isn't helping.

Without adequate tools, I don't see how most instances aren't driven towards simply existing on their own. Large instances need tools to deal with malicious actors, as they are the targets. The solution to defederate ignores the ability for people to just spin up new instances, to hijack existing small instances with less resources for security, sysops, to watch/manage their DB, to prevent malicious actors. I've already seen proposed solutions which involve scraping for all instances with less than a certain number of users to defederate on principle (inactive, too many users/post ratio). We're fighting spam bots right now, who are targeting instances which don't have captcha enabled.

Follow this thinking through to it's conclusion. If the solution is to defederate, and there are potentially unlimited attack vectors, what must a large instance do to not overburden its resources? Switch from blacklist to whitelist? Defederate from all small instances? How is this sustainable for the fediverse? If you want people to be interacting with each other, you need to provide the tools for this to happen in the presence of malicious actors. You can't just assume these malicious actors won't exist, or will just overcome any and all obstacles you throw in their way because you're smart enough to understand how to bypass captcha or other issues.

This isn't just an issue of whether captcha or some other anti-spam measure is used, it's an issue about the overall health of the fediverse. Please think wider about the impact before offering your 2c about how captchas are worthless or how you hate cloudflare. I don't think the user that posted this cares about the soapbox you want to preach from- they're looking for solutions.

We expect we'll be able to refederate as soon as we get an adequate level of granularity in moderation tools to prevent bad actors like this. If you're a developer looking for a good target for what is needed, it's precisely this.

Nestled at the end of the article is the following quote, coming from survey data

But there's also the power trip. Remarkably, a recent survey of company execs revealed that most mandated returns to the office were based on something as ironclad as "gut feeling," and that 80 percent actually regret ever making the decision.

I think the reality is that like most policy decisions at a workplace, they are based on nothing. They simply are drawn from how the people at the top feel like an organization should be or because that's simply how these decision makers are used to (or comfortable with) doing things.

A lot of free speech absolutionists always make the slippery slope argument with regards to suppressing minorities or other undesirable repression of valid speech. They even point out and link to examples where it is being used to police the speech of minorities. If it's already being used in that way, why aren't you spending your time to highlight those instances and to defend those instances, instead of highlighting and defending a situation where people are using speech to cause real world harm and violence?

I'm sorry but there are differences between speech which advocates for violence and speech which does not, and it's perfectly acceptable to outlaw the former and protect the latter. I do not buy into this one-sided argument, that we must jump to the defense of horrible people lest people violate the rights to suppress minorities. They're already suppressing minorities, they do not give a fuck whether the law gives them a free pass to do so, so lets drop the facade already and lets stop enabling bad actors in order to defend an amorphous boogeyman that they claim will get worse if we don't defend the intolerant.

To anyone thinking of reporting this comment, he's already been banned. I'm leaving the comment up because I think it's a good example of the community rallying to push back on a racist idiot. 😄

Not a strong case for NYT, but I've long believed that AI is vulnerable to copyright law and likely the only thing to stop/slow it's progression. Given the major issues with all AI and how inequitable and bigoted they are and their increasing use, I'm hoping this helps to start conversations about limiting the scope of AI or application.

Please help me to understand how this can be interpreted as anything but rude and dismissive

The person who suggested it just got a beehaw tattoo and loved it. To me, it was instantly clear it checked the following characteristics of good branding or appealing attributes:

• Reasonably unique
• Coherent branding/image
• Open to enough interpretation to inspire ideas
• Cute, short, recognizable
• Bees are awesome and important to the world
• A good level of modern absurdity
• Some kind of je-ne-sais-quoi amalgamation of clear US imagery without being pro-US, inspirational/motivating, action-forward, idk what else to put here but just like, good in the way yahoo is good but from a different cultural background

It's okay to not like tiktok, but can you try to be a little nicer when sharing your opinion of it?

I can't help but wonder how in the long term deep fakes are going to change society. I've seen this article making the rounds on other social media, and there's inevitably some dude who shows up who makes the claim that this will make nudes more acceptable because there will be no way to know if a nude is deep faked or not. It's sadly a rather privileged take from someone who suffers from no possible consequences of nude photos of themselves on the internet, but I do think in the long run (20+ years) they might be right. Unfortunately between now and some ephemeral then, many women, POC, and other folks will get fired, harassed, blackmailed and otherwise hurt by people using tools like these to make fake nude images of them.

But it does also make me think a lot about fake news and AI and how we've increasingly been interacting in a world in which "real" things are just harder to find. Want to search for someone's actual opinion on something? Too bad, for profit companies don't want that, and instead you're gonna get an AI generated website spun up by a fake alias which offers a "best of " list where their product is the first option. Want to understand an issue better? Too bad, politics is throwing money left and right on news platforms and using AI to write biased articles to poison the well with information meant to emotionally charge you to their side. Pretty soon you're going to have no idea whether pictures or videos of things that happened really happened and inevitably some of those will be viral marketing or other forms of coercion.

It's kind of hard to see all these misuses of information and technology, especially ones like this which are clearly malicious in nature, and the complete inaction of government and corporations to regulate or stop this and not wonder how much worse it needs to get before people bother to take action.

There will always be groups of people who prefer the old and new. With more cohesive branding with our community logos and eventually a lemmy theme, I'm hoping we can rotate logos semi-regularly as a way to represent the diversity of our website and to help support amazing local artists.

But that's just my thoughts on it, in this case it was a logo commissioned for a specific purpose (app icon), and we wanted to align with that and celebrate new and great art (as well as continue to support the artist who's helped us with all our community icons!)

If you can’t show sympathy, are you different to him?

I understand what you are getting at, but he doesn't deserve sympathy. This man has directly made the world significantly worse, by inflicting and inciting violence on others. If you do not wish to get involved in a violent act in order to decrease the total amount of violence in the world, that's perfectly reasonable. I also think it's fine to decide that violence is not for you, and wish to have no part in it while also recognizing that violence happens in the world and sometimes the outcome of that violence is for the better or for the worse.

I personally strive to commit as little violence as possible in the world. I'm a peaceful person who wishes to uplift and care for others. But I also have very little sympathy for folks who are violent towards others, because they are actively making the world worse. In a perfect society, we could rehabilitate or humanely control/prevent this violence, but we do not live in a perfect society. I cannot be tolerant of the intolerant because it feels better to hope for their salvation. This world demands that we be intolerant of those who advocate for violence because the outcomes when we tolerate them are horrific and result in much more violence and tragedy in the world.

We've spun up a chat, added them and a few other instance admins. Yay, progress!

We are not and never intended to be Reddit or a Reddit alternative. This is clearly laid out in our docs. We are trying to do something fundamentally different, and are not interested in users who just want Reddit but elsewhere.

Unfortunately it comes with the territory. When you stick up for the humanity of others, people who benefit from the system fight you because they like the system as it is, they've been subconsciously indoctrinated, or they're afraid of change. I know that I signed up for this and honestly it's not affecting me all that much (I still love you all), but I'm trying to pay close attention to the environment and perceptions of the environment around here and be as transparent as I can about that journey in case it's helpful to anyone out there

Did you read the rest of the article? It talks about how she talked with others in the company about this, someone above her took it very personally as suggesting he was racist, and her prompt firing. It also highlights how bungie was exposed for both racial and gender bias by reporting just a few months before she was hired, indicating that these exposed problems likely still existed.

I don't mean any harm when I say this, but why would you jump to the defense of a company in the first place, dismissing claims of racism or other forms of bigotry? The world is incredibly biased, and regular large-scale studies on company culture (and social culture) reveal widespread bigotry in our world. Simply assuming the status quo absent enough evidence on either side to clearly paint a picture is more often than not correct. What purpose does trying to discredit her accomplish here? How do you think it makes black people feel to see the only reply in a thread is an attempt at discrediting her?

We were explicitly looking to not replicate Reddit - while both are link aggregator websites, we didn't particularly like the general vibe present on Reddit. I think a lot of folks on Beehaw agree with that premise, but functionally speaking there's not a huge difference between the platforms or communities. A lot of the difference seems to be about the vision and philosophy of what the place can and should be.

I think if a CEO repeatedly ignored my boundaries and pushed their agenda on me I would not be able to keep the same amount of distance from the subject to make such a measured blog post. I'd likely use the opportunity to point out both the bad behavior and engage with the content itself. I have a lot of respect for Lori for being able to really highlight a specific issue (harassment and ignoring boundaries) and focus only on that issue because of it's importance. I think it's important framing, because I could see people quite easily being distracted by the content itself, especially when it is polarizing content, or not seeing the behavior as problematic without the focus being squarely on the behavior and nothing else. It's smart framing and I really respect Lori for being able to stick to it.

As usual, it has nothing to do with the kids and everything to do with being transgender 😔

I could be wrong but I don't think the ruling states on reverting amended birth certificates. The article highlights a specific trans person wondering if the state government will try to revert their birth certificate, not stating it as a fact or highlighting where it exists in the ruling.

That's not entirely true. It's meant to categorize fields of study which try to pass themselves off as scientific, that is to say that they follow the scientific method. To call something pseudoscientific is to say that they aren't following the scientific method. Fields of study which rely a lot on biases, exaggerated claims, are lacking rigorous attempts of refutation, etc. fall into this category.

Often times they are laid off, with a generous multimillion severance package

I don't want to discount the findings too harshly, because I believe that democrats have a ton of issues with their voters in general and can only go on promising everything but delivering nothing for so long before people wisen up, but I do want to just gently remind everyone how accurate polling was in the 2016 and 2020 election cycles and its general decline among the population as a way to understand how people vote. Polling groups have not adapted to the times and frequently demand far too much out of a population which is overburdened and simply not interested in engaging with pollsters through archaic mediums and conventional means of identifying who is eligible to be polled are not applicable to a modern populace.

This boy is purposefully being misleading about himself - he is presenting a con. We shouldn't be victim blaming.

We can't edit other people's titles and this is a good article, but I wanted to don my mod hat for a second to mention that this title is sensationalized, and we would appreciate it if you leave the original article title in tact in the future.

Hey there. This is beautiful work! I can't speak for all the other admins but I have strong opinions on the logo. To me, the logo needs to be both bee and haw and I don't want it to feel watered down or presented in a way to be appealing to all the masses. To me it's meant to be cute, radical, and kinda in your face with it's absurdity. I don't think it can be done in such an abstract way without losing too much character. But that's just my 2c.

The themes are quite clean, however, which is definitely what I think we need to reduce visual clutter and make things easy to find. Thank you so much for putting this all together, it's great work!

it's the only emotion men are allowed to have lol