LLMs should just straight not allow certain topics

They already don’t. It doesn’t work. That’s what happened here.

LLMs aren’t self-aware and they’re still as smart as a middle manager or a script kiddie.

An anime called Chargeman Ken where “animation” is a generous compliment. Some action shots are three frames long. Most shots are static - with one alternating mouth motion, when characters aren’t just framed, positioned, or turned to avoid animating them at all. But it works. You are watching a clear story take place. It’s not a radio drama or narration. The story is terrible, because these broke fools were animating every first draft that could fill twenty minutes, but events occur onscreen in a sequence that you can follow with your eyeballs.

And the result is some dramatic presentation. One episode starts with characters watching a Godzilla knockoff. Buildings take time to draw, so you get two frames of an upward angle conveying Cheapogodzilla’s size. When the hero bursts into a room for an accusation, they’re framed at a distance, to avoid animating their face. The show is rife with all this dynamic perspective and foreshortening that even cheap CGI today won’t do, because they think they have to fill the entire frame with someone’s head. Cartoons with budgets get flat presentation because they’re trying to be sitcoms and clearly show off nuance and subtlety. Making absolute garbage for a fraction of the price takes so much more creativity.

ITT: people with no idea how to represent a proportion.

Pie charts are correct, here.

The Playstation started as an SNES add-on.

It’s object-oriented; you can assign this to a named variable.

()=>{}

Javascript straddling the middle as usual.

Speaking filth doesn’t itself harm others, the harm to others comes from what others do in response to that speech.

Yet harm is done. People die because of speech. How do you weigh the right to live, versus the right to speak? Are they equally important? Speech, moreso? Or are we simply pretending that the predictable outcomes of blood libel are disconnected from that blameless act of merely saying words?

(i.e. “I support free speech” -> “So you support Nazi newspapers?”)

When the answer is YES, this complaint doesn’t work. I expected a no! I was looking for common ground!

I didn’t say anything to that extent.

if Lemmy is going to be an actual competitor to Reddit, it needs to attract people from all ends of the political spectrum, with the caveat that bad behavior is not tolerated. I don’t care if someone is from the left wing, the right wing, or some other wing, they should have a seat at the table as long as they’re respectful and bring evidence to support their assertions when in communities that expect that.

Response: “Nobody needs ‘all ends of the political spectrum,’ when that includes Nazis.”

But we do. Nazism was a popular movement, and we need people to understand it or we’re doomed to repeat that era of history. If we hide it, people will forget why it was so bad and it’ll fester until it gains enough power to cause problems.

Not only did you absolutely say that, you seem to think we need nazis around in order to know that nazis are bad. (How can we teach about the evils of slavery, unless there’s still slaveholders?) Fascist propaganda is harmless until you censor it, because that’s what spreads the ideology. Obviously we should let people sincerely push scientific racism, with whatever evidence bolsters their intolerable bigotry… unless they’re interpersonally impolite. Telling someone to fuck a rake, well now, that’s not free speech.

And that was over mere federation. How could that be any closer to having their newspapers display at our store?

Yeah I’ve already saved this thread for when you lie about me to someone else. Called that in the first comment.

Meanwhile someone in your ingroup admits they did exactly what I said, but they said nuh-uh before repeating exactly what I said they said, so it doesn’t count. Again: first comment.

Honestly, thank you for being an uncomplicated example of exactly what I’m talking about. I could put a sticker on your forehead and you’d try rubbing it off the guy in the mirror.

‘He kinda did.’

‘I kinda did.’

So you’re a nazi?

Troll.

good media should crowd out the bad.

Does should mean will?

Disinformation is not erased by correction. Brains don’t work that way. Reactionary radicalization must be prevented, because curing it is a thousand times harder. This is protecting people from harm through speech, as much as censoring directed threats or bigoted abuse. Polite phrasing on intolerable beliefs is just mobster speak: ‘it would be a shame if anything happened to your children.’

I think it was meant as a gotcha question

It was meant as a universal touchstone. Surely, I thought, everybody recognizes literal nazi propaganda should have been stopped, at some point. But no: that obvious extreme was met with milquetoast ‘well I wouldn’t read it.’ Neither did the Jews, buddy. Didn’t help. Systemic problems aren’t about you.

By the by, calling pointed questions “gotchas” is also a conservative tactic. I opened gently with acknowledgement that at one point the nazi party was just some schmucks. But not only did you suggest the problem with pro-holocaust propaganda was sourcing, you outright invited modern fascists to the table, so long as their racism is scientific racism. You can’t wedge yourself under a low bar and claim it was a trap.

The person in question told you I was right, and you agree with them, but still pretend I’m wrong.

Which is different from the ingroup-based reality I described… somehow.

My level being an accurate reference to specific events I’m prepared to source.

When you recognize you were wrong, your beliefs are supposed to change.

Debt is destructive because it detaches prices from reality. It’s how school, cars, houses, and medicine became comically unaffordable. If you can make up a number and demand people pay you forever then you don’t need to engage in actual mundane capitalism.

You are functionally illiterate.

Word salad.

Good day.

Hey, so… do Democrats get invited to LP conventions?

I’ve spent twenty years bickering with libertarians online, in a rich tableau of bickering with damn near everyone online, and the few typical improvements over run-of-the-mill republicans are counterbalanced by suggesting whites-only businesses should be left to the market. As a rule, they’re not bigots… but they view bigotry as individual choice, where prevention means ‘well I wouldn’t–’ and solutions go ‘you should just–.’

Systemic problems are not addressed by individual action. That’s. What makes them systemic. I know you have glimpsed the elephant, walking around feeling its shape, because you’ve said artificial scarcity can violate the non-aggression principle. That doesn’t actually make sense, but it understands something’s fucked, and searches for reasons, using the cards you’re prepared to draw. This was in the thread where you suggested that bombarding people with “SMOKE!” ads and making their deadly chemical dependency as gentle as possible was a perfectly fine level of manipulation for profit. Admirable, even. A commendable example of unrestrained markets doing something good. Like so long as you can say choice with a straight face, problems aren’t real.

Meanwhile this herd of alleged porcupines isn’t notorious for direct action against overbearing police presence, except for those armed pricks harassing meter maids a decade ago. Y’all chided ‘get government out of the marriage business’ like that’d solve corporations excluding a man’s husband from healthcare. All the Ron Paul bros on reddit were fine with state governments doing whatever, so long as the boot on their neck wasn’t federal. Your party convention hosted a fascist. If the grand philosophy was more of an excuse, for the supermajority of those who identify with it, what would look different?

Ohhh, Universal Monk slandered me again. No, an obvious exaggeration about instance-owners escalating their discouragement against Lemmy’s most block-evading troll is not somehow an endorsement of crimes, you adorable little dingus. You adorable vote-manipulating sockpuppet, if we glance at your own modlog and pretend that’s infallible.

So your whole ‘we know you’ schtick is just one guy clutching pearls about me saying what an asshole he is, huh? That’s disappointing. When I argue with sugar_in_your_tea, there’s notes. In our previous interaction he kinda defended actual Nazi newspapers, and I’ll give the benefit of context and nuance, but that shit’s coming up again. You play a weak game if you wanna come out accusing someone of murder fantasies and gangstalking, and your whole basis is - ‘but a tankie said so!’

Meanwhile, you’ve done less than nothing to distnguish yourself from any other conservative. You want to label me, and pretend that’s a substitute for any form of counterargument. Like. The whole accusation was, y’all just sneer at outsiders based on this ideology-as-identity, and reach for excuses to justify that kneejerk conclusion.

And your rebuttal was to do that three times in a row.

Your chosen example is ‘How do we solve this profitable abuse?’ ‘Don’t.’

At best - your philosophy has been co-opted by rich bastards seeking high-minded excuses for destroying all obstacles to their consolidation of wealth and power. At worst they invented it. As they’ve invented countless internally-consistent pretenses they will adopt or abandon as it suits their plain and simple motives.

The best-case scenario, where there really is some core of true believers and they’re all you’d like to talk about, sees you use cigarettes as a positive example. Manufactured desire converted to chemical dependency. It’s a denial of systemic problems, in an era where systemic problems from profitable abuses might end human civilization.

An approach to policy that demands no policy is the sound of one hand clapping. At least I think that’s the gesture it’s making.

I invite you to bring receipts for any of those shrill claims, because it’s inevitably going to be a couple shrugs about Charlie Kirk, and then nothing. Glib frustration with infuriating nonsense, which you’ve somehow twisted up into lurid allegations about… stalking? I cannot even guess what the fuck inspired that fantasy. And you put ‘troll accusations’ in the same breath. Bit of a disconnect, yeah? Arson, murder, jaywalking? I gladly admit to calling people trolls, when they’re trolling.

Like when they just make shit up and don’t have an argument.

Like this directed abuse in the absence of fact.

At no point were you asked to believe me. That denial is a confession. It speaks to a worldview fixated on interpersonal loyalty, where things are true because a trusted person says them. You’ll never agree with me because claims from the outgroup are automatically wrong. That tribalism is the core of conservatism. You don’t have an answer, and that doesn’t bother you, because you’ve already drawn me as the soyjak, and apparently that’s all you think there is to reality. What a shame there’s no way for opposing claims to be settled by lookin’.