It’s not my instance. it’s our instance, our FAF. I don’t have any more power than any other admin

I've been involved in a (non-anarchist) online group which tried to figure out how to minimize hierarchy for their website, so that no rogue or absent member could ruin it, so I'd like to know how the db0 instance approaches the issue without simply being a benevolent dictatorship by whichever members effectively own the servers and domains, and therefore can seize the site at will. They ended up simply settling for open source code and good will, which worked for them but didn't truly remove power hierarchy.

If you had studied you would know that when you make extremely strong claims you must back them up with more evidence than "here is a book". The typical fashion is to provide a quotation, or chapter/page reference making it easy to demonstrate that you're not talking out of your arse.

Of course no serious person actually thinks human brains are "just pattern matchers in a loop" because that statement is silly, it's not even clear what that would mean. So of course you can't cite someone saying that.

Read more. Post less.

Just say you exaggerated, there's no need to resort to insults lol. You said something stupid and you can't back it up so you're mad at me.

We have radical recalls, where any admin from the FAF can be recalled with a popular vote. We also instituted a confederation of instances rather than rely on a single website, so that if one sysadmin goes rogue and doesn't accept a radical recall, they can be kicked off the confed.

I think you and unruffled's opinions on llm utility and ethics are incredibly wrong but the thing that has been melting by brain out my ears over this whole thing is how the people being criticised for apparently evil moderating are the only people trying to practice some sort of democracy in moderation and policies.

I am actually going to have a stroke, this is so stupid. Lemmy drama is so stupid

aka you asked an llm and it gave you a biased answer?

You do realise saying "I've studied the subject" has no credibility behind it whatsoever?

If you've truly studied the subject you'd be able to explain your rational, not lash out against people asking for you to clarify.

As far as this thread is concerned you've read a book once and it made you an armchair expert. Probably the worst pseudo-intellectualism I've seen on here for a long while.

Can I ask some more questions?

What's the stance on popular votes? B/c some other people I know, they don't really fancy democracy as in: majority rule. It's a complicated matter (in reality) though.

And coming back to the question I wrote a few comments earlier: What's a moderators role? I guess I'd view it as some form of effective mild(?) hierarchical(?) or better: organizational position, as a mod gets extra tools and gets to ...well... moderate people's conversations. Are they bound to represent their community? I mean if they're part of some form of radical recall as well, they kinda represent/or speak for the group with what they're doing. Reason I ask is your post. And one individual connecting LLMs to mod decisions in their role as a moderator. Is that on them as an individual? Or do I get to apply the anarchist philosophy in reverse and blame the group of people standing behind their spokesperson for doing it in their name?

Sorry if my phrasing is a bit weird. Genuinely trying to make sense of it and what I'd like to think about the FAF's methodology.

What's the stance on popular votes? B/c some other people I know, they don't really fancy democracy as in: majority rule. It's a complicated matter (in reality) though.

We try to reach consensus internally in the admin team usually, but if we can't or if we feel it's going to be a controversial decision, we bring it to a popular vote. Generally yes direct democracy is not a perfect tool, but so long as a decision taken with it can be easily reversed with it it's no quite so bad.

And coming back to the question I wrote a few comments earlier: What's a moderators role?[...]

We typically let admins run around doing direct action and trust that they act in good faith. They're not puppets. If one admin fucks up, we expect that the community will recall them. Our users are free to assign blame to whoever they want anyway. If they feel that other admins enabled bad behaviour and they also need to be recalled, they are free to request that as well.

I don't care. See how easy it is? Either you're interested in the subject and you would already know that what I wrote is completely uncontroversial, or you spend time making ignorant posts because a simple fact disagrees with your feels.

When a colourblind person tells you the sky is green, do you call them uninformed and tell them to "go read a book", or do you notice their world view is different from yours and try to figure out why? Maybe discover tritanopia in the process.

Right, "you don't care"

First time hearing this drama. Appreciate the db0 clarifying that LLMs aren't a apart of mod or admin work.

The Piefed developer can get fucked.

Not a single person who has commented is interested in an actual discussion regarding the science on consciousness. It's all this: https://blog.troed.se/posts/the-coming-cognitive-disbelief/

I am pretty sure I read Godel Escher and Bach when I was in college, almost 20 years ago now.

That is what I am referring to when I say 'in some contexts and scopes, it is a reasonable simplification'.

LLMs are pattern matching machines, that operate via code that involves many different kinds of loops.

Brains appear to act in that manner as well, but my point is that they do many, many other things and that is because they are fundamentally different kinds of 'machines' that have fundamentally different 'operating principles', many of which we are still figuring out, quite likely many of which we are currently not even aware of or barely understand at all.

And, actually, that LLMs are 'next token predictors' does say a lot about their internally emergent properties.... that is to say, the lack of them, their bottlenecks.

LLMs are not going to be able to progress into being AGI, because there are many things Brains can do that LLMs cannot... for one, forgetting things, unlearning false things.

An LLM cannot modify its own training data. It cannot modify its own conceptual association scores.

Humans can do this. They can realize some fundamental notion they have is actually significantly wrong, incorrect, and what happens is the brain literally physically restructures itself when that occurs.

Unless or untill the actual fundamental idea of what an LLM is, is significantly altered or augmented... they're going to keep running into the diminishing returns problem that they currently area.

Brains are much more capable, diverse and complex than LLMs.

Yes, as I've described here: https://blog.troed.se/posts/the-delta-between-an-llm-and-consciousness/

I didn't say human brains function like LLMs

Today's LLMs are based on a Google research paper from 2017. Another published paper that would solve this was published by Google in december last year: https://aipapersacademy.com/nested-learning-hope/

Did you really just drop "I've done my research" here?! Lol! Bet you're an immunologist, too. And a lawyer on top.

I've studied the subject

Look I don't care about your blog, I care about the comment you made here, in this thread.

You are not important enough for you to assign me required reading, muchless presume I am 'familiar with your previous works'.

You are another random username and profile pic that is saying some words.

You should have the contextual awareness to realize that a lot of people on basically a public internet discussion forum have a lot of varying degrees of knowledge <-> misinformation regarding LLMs, and that when you make a single sentence statement that yes, does not precisely say that Brains only do what LLMs do... a whole bunch of other people are going to read it as such.

Thus, I provided that additional context and nuance here, in this thread, so that anyone who stumbles upon this thread can read this thread and be better informed, here.

Does it have instance blocking that includes users?

Oh I haven't seen a single person replying so far who has shown any interest in being "better informed".

You lost the bet - where do I get my payout?

Your cognitive bias is known as "Out-Group Homogeneity Bias". Enjoy.

https://dictionary.apa.org/outgroup-homogeneity-bias

A lot of responses to you wanted to have a discussion about it, you're shooting them down before they even happen by not providing a basis for your argument.

Although I agree with your premise to a point, it's crazy to regard a philosophical argument as absolute truth.

That's not a link to your blog? Don't real researchers cite themselves? You're falling off, friend.

Lmao. "At this point" it has been like this since day one. Everypne seems to have forgotten this 90s gem: You can't delete stuff from the internet

I've sourced two of the foremost specialists on the subject. Blackmore's "Consciousness: An Introduction" amounts to a full university semester on the subject. No, I don't really see it as my job to condense that down in a post here. Anyone who's actually interested can start with reading up summaries that are available freely online instead of posting bad takes at me.

Was your cognitive dissonance slightly alleviated by what you believe to be a smart comeback?

hugs

Howabout everyone upvoting the additional context I am providing, being taken to signal that they support being more fully informed, here, in this thread?

With this 'reddit-esque' style of a discussion forum, you can expect that something like 90% of people are lurkers who mostly interact via up and down votes.

Beyond that, a number of people elsewhere in this thread are... having fairly extensive discussions, about what actually constitutes being 'better informed' irt LLMs.

You can't spell nerd without starting an argument as to whether or not you've partially spelled neuroticism, or merely used that as an overly complex premise for a joke.

I mean, you’re in a network/platform that goes as far as encouraging you to use multiple accounts, so what’s stopping you from doing it right?!

easy access to weapons grade software like llms that can deanonymize users across multiple posts across the entire web

Yes but there has been a cultural and technical shift on the internet.
Your average AOL user was not out running witch hunts against people they ideologically oppose, you couldnt mass blast your shitter post to your 5m followers and change public opinion over night, You were not linked by your real name to your employer, your ssn address etc was not leaked 5x to sunday.

The landscape has changed "at this point".

IKTYKTIKTYK the real solution this problem, and its not another attempt at a federated message board 😏

Excellent clarification

LLM's and stylometry are not magic.
i write using different styles constantly.
And It's not like people are writing original long essays here all the time, for the weapons grade tools to assay anything with high confidence.

LLM as a technology isn't inherently bad. All of the problems with it are related to the fact rich sociopaths are (or are allowing it) to be implemented, used, and misused in evil ways.

E.g. an ethically trained local model implemented in a way to assist a mod team really isn't a problem.

Yeah, I really dislike the head Lemmy dev, Dessaline's, political beliefs and the way they seem to run some of the communities they mod on .ml. They don't always seem to understand certain suggestions for usability improvements, and there have been times where development has been superbly slow on important features.

I truly think a big part of their motivation in making the software was to be able to create a place where their own controversial opinions couldn't be effectively censored while they maintained complete control over their own instance. I wish I could assume better motivations. But it's admittedly complete speculation.

All of that said, I've not seen them put any of their political beliefs into the software itself, and that is only earning more of my respect as time goes on.

I had a twinge of concern when Rimu implemented a really basic filter for trying to detect screenshots from 4chan, which would block them from being uploaded with an intentionally misleading error message. Should have followed my gut feeling.

There's no reason for that to be a direct platform level feature instead of there being a base of functionality for custom image handling functionality. Compression with stuff like imagemagick, hash check to prevent duplicate uploads, and "image feature" detection and handling code with that specific bugbear as the example "extension"/"detector"/etc.

Not as a hardcoded feature. Even just from a design standpoint that's not a great choice.

Any ai use without a human in loop is dangerous in someway it is just a glorified next word predictor idsa has had me memorize this one

I truly think a big part of their motivation in making the software was to be able to create a place where their own controversial opinions couldn’t be effectively censored while they maintained complete control over their own instance. I wish I could assume better motivations. But it’s admittedly complete speculation.

You don’t need to speculate when it’s public knowledge. Reddit censored MLs so MLs made their own Reddit. They created Lemmy principally so that lemmygrad.ml could exist[^1], and secondarily so that anyone could do the same and the various instances could federate with each other—or not. That’s why they intentionally don’t bake politics into the software. They knew from the start that—if Lemmy were to survive at all—their own instance(s) would become less popular than liberal ones.

[^1]: Lemmy.ml is a niche instance they use to beta test releases.

It might be more reputational damage and models do have quirks(goblins gpt5) and biases so do people you might not want to compound them and priming is a thing known to mess with human judgment

Edit: Lengthy comment removed. This isn't so much about your opinion on me. You're free to form your own. And I already know based on all the downvotes and feedback I get. I just wanted to form my opinion on you. How you handle dissent, whether you have the same notion of what constitutes good and bad behaviour as me, and what's going to happen if I feel I'm being subject to abuse. And whether that's the general FAF community's opinion or just a very vocal minority. Sometimes it's difficult to tell in online places. That's why I ask all these questions. I just wanted to know if I'm compatible. If I want to be on the same party as y'all.

This is the third time this month alone that I've seen this Piefed clown try to stir shit in various communities. What the fuck is their problem?

They got incredibly salty that a random /0 mod called them a zionist in modlog and they've been on a vendetta ever since

Lol. Citation definitely needed.

As I expected: inconsequential very online bullshit. What a fucking tool.

I don't agree. You can give people the benefit of the doubt when they're someone who's had a bad day but has a history of being a normal person.

It is a waste of human resources to manually check and consider whether to ban 20 minute old accounts spouting slurs, insults, rape threats, and doxxing.

Those are ones who should be automatically banned with no further consideration given. Most of these dipshits are probably AI or bots themselves. You should use blind automated tools to ban them. There is no legitimate 20 minute old account coming into communities and attacking or starting fights with people. Those are trolls and there is zero ambiguity or abstractness there.