The catarrhine who invented a perpetual motion machine, by dreaming at night and devouring its own dreams through the day.
If you’re referring to symbolic AI, I don’t think that the AI scene will turn 180° and ditch NN-based approaches. Instead what I predict is that we’ll see hybrids - where a symbolic model works as the “core” of the AI, handling the logic, and a neural network handles the input/output.
I believe that the current LLM paradigm is a technological dead end. We might see a few additional applications popping up, in the near future; but they’ll be only a tiny fraction of what was promised.
My bet is that they’ll get superseded by models with hard-coded logic. Just enough to be able to correctly output “if X and Y are true/false, then Z is false”, without fine-tuning or other band-aid solutions.
However once they lose the googlebux, a meaningful part of the revenue stream will be donations. And features implemented because of donators asking for them are, typically, things that we users desire.
May I be frank? I suspect that, in the long run, Mozilla not getting this money will actually benefit Firefox. Sure, so exec will get pissed as they won’t get 5.6 million dollars a year, and Firefox won’t get some weird nobody-asked-for feature that’ll be ditched some time later; but I think that they’ll focus better on the browser this way. Specially because whoever is paying the dinner is the one picking the dish, and with a higher proportion of their effective income coming from donations, what users want will stop being so neglected.
Just my two cents.
I’ll copypaste an interesting comment here:
[Stephen Smith] This article is a great example of a trend I don’t think companies realize they’ve started yet: They have killed the golden goose of user-generated content for short-term profit. // Who would willingly contribute to a modern-day YouTube, Reddit, StackOverflow, or Twitter knowing that they are just feeding the robots that will one day replace them?
You don’t even need robots replacing humans, or people believing so. All you need is people feeling that you’re profiting at their expense.
Also obligatory “If you’re not paying for the product, then you are the product”.
That’s good news. Odds are that some of those people will go back to closed media platforms after ~2 months; but the ones who stay help Mastodon and the Fediverse to grow.
Federation woes?
Your comment has a different take though, and adding value to the discussion, it isn’t just the same as I said. Both are complementary.
Even more accurately: it’s bullshit.
“Lie” implies that the person knows the truth and is deliberately saying something that conflicts with it. However the sort of people who spread misinfo doesn’t really care about what’s true or false, they only care about what further reinforces their claims or not.
Predictable outcome for anyone not wallowing in wishful belief.
Easier: n(13-n).
Reworded rules for clarity:
- Min required length must be 8 chars (obligatory), but it should be 15 chars (recommended).
- Max length should allow at least 64 chars.
- You should accept all ASCII plus space.
- You should accept Unicode; if doing so, you must count each code as one char.
- Don’t demand composition rules (e.g. “u’re password requires a comma! lol lmao haha” tier idiocy)
- Don’t bug users to change passwords periodically. Only do it if there’s evidence of compromise.
- Don’t store password hints that others can guess.
- Don’t prompt the user to use knowledge-based authentication.
- Don’t truncate passwords for verification.
I was expecting idiotic rules screaming “bureaucratic muppets don’t know what they’re legislating on”, but instead what I’m seeing is surprisingly sane and sensible.
Lemmy is too small and this snafoo is so pointless that I think a community apology would be hilarious.
It doesn’t need to be something fancy. Just an “EDIT: I apologise to the community for sounding abrasive. I’m a mod here so my behaviour should be better than that, my bad.” I think that it’s important because users take moderators of their respective communities as role models on how they’re allowed/disallowed to behave, so if the mod doesn’t at least mention that they fucked it up, other users might see it and think “OK, that’s valid behaviour here, even the mod does it. Time to go rogue.”
I think the punishment should fit the crime. Having some weirdo follow your posts around calling you manipulative and toxic for months is just… its too much.
Yup, full agree with that. And based on interactions with the user in this thread, they’re being clearly disingenuous, mincing words to play the victim. The mod was in the wrong but that’s, as you said, too much.
I agree with you, but what does a moderator do once they engage with the user other than remove the whole interaction?
You think before engaging. And if you fuck it up, you apologise to the community (not to that specific user) for what you’ve done wrong. But unless the content is sensitive (for example, the other user posted something illegal), you keep it alone, at most you lock it.
Yes, their comment was extremely annoying, both in tone (whining) and content (TL;DR: “pls spoonfeed me basic reading comprehension”). If the mod simply removed the comment, or issued an official warning, it would be 100% warranted.
However, what the non-mod user is saying ITT about moderator abuse is still spot on. The mod in question answered to the whining in tone, tried to cover their own arse with content removal, and then went to whine in Mastodon about the events, or the fact that there’s transparency functionality in Lemmy (the mod log) against the exact same behaviour that they showed there.
So it’s a case where both sides were wrong but given their relative positions the mod being wrong is a bigger deal.
Perhaps.
Worst hypothesis the company gets completely bankrupt, but someone takes up the torch.