loginwalled

stfu

I’ll just say again that for the original comment that this is about, leaving aside anything I wrote, that demand is not justified, and I don’t regret pushing back on it.

There are conversations where it’s better to just leave it, but I don’t see this as one of them.

Hm, worrying. I wonder what the gap might be, like what could make an adult citizen not a ‘qualified elector’

I am pretty sure those voting rights are also guaranteed by the federal constitution, so probably not

To collect logs for an IRC server you need to set up a client that will always be on and connected, otherwise you will only have logs from when you had the program turned on. You can’t view logs from before you were doing that, unless someone else shares them with you. IRC servers don’t publish their internal logs normally.

Are there people lurking IRC just collecting logs, sure. But that also goes for everything else. If you delete this comment, there are people out there who will still have a copy, it’s not that hard. It will likely be on Internet Archive too.

He gets that chance now, though probably they will continue doing exactly what they want at their chosen pace because no one was ever standing in their way.

Everything publicly put on the internet is permanently logged if someone decides to log it, that applies to every modern website or chat software.

which is about how women have to deal with this bullshit all the time online

The point has been made. If you have more to say about it, go ahead.

You don’t need to participate, if this isn’t the subject that you want to talk about.

The unspoken thing I guess being that I shouldn’t participate if that isn’t something I have anything to say about. It sounds like something you want is for discussions that can be considered to be about women’s issues to be narrowly framed as such, and think there’s something wrong with engaging with the discussion in a way that doesn’t do this. I think this is much less reasonable than anything the comic itself is saying. There is a big difference between talking about the same issue but in a broader way, and remarking something overtly irrelevant and hostile like “what about circumcision”. That isn’t to say that spaces exclusively for narrowly framed discussion about women’s issues shouldn’t exist, but I don’t see a reason this comment thread has to be one, or why not considering it to be one should be regarded as offensive.

Googling “Luce porn” immediately surfaced sites where people are posting what appears to be handmade images of exactly that (click at your own risk), but searching Civitai specifically, a site which makes AI-generating porn of anyone and anything extremely easy, turned up the real motherlode.

I gotta say, the choice to write this article itself is questionable. It’s obvious this stuff would exist to anyone familiar with the internet, but describing the images in lurid detail and saying exactly how to get them complete with direct links, kinda sus.

The men replying are almost never showing support, they’re minimizing the issue, or they’re trying to co-opt the thread.

To me, the comment in question didn’t seem to be doing that. The point I’m trying to make is to object to the idea that it is categorically doing that, given the context. It seems like a divisive way of deciding what is bad behavior, to condemn any statement made in response to discussion about problems faced by one group that is not specifically about the struggles of that group, regardless of anything else about the statement.

This is a specific complaint about how any time women try to talk about women’s issues in a forum that may contain men, those men engage in disingenuous whataboutism.

If you would rather expand on how that goes or the ways in which this is predominantly a women’s issue, feel free to take this opportunity instead of responding to what else I’m saying.

It’s more that society should have asked nicely instead of trying to manipulate me into it with years of brainwashing and coercive economics, so I made it a priority to participate as little as possible and that’s on them. Want a functional system, treat people with respect.

The comic is about how when people speak online online about women’s issues, dudes keep trying to make it about dudes.

This is a legitimate complaint in the situations where the topic is uniquely a women’s issue, and people are trying to redirect the conversation to something that really isn’t the same thing and is a separate issue so talking about that means you aren’t talking about the first thing anymore. But the meta issue of someone trying to talk about one group’s problems and getting hit by whataboutism, seems arguably more universal and might not be specifically a women’s issue, so saying something along the lines of “yeah this happens to us too it sucks”, could be supportive and not about shutting up discussion of the original topic.

And it’s arguably in the process of dying itself right now, in quality if not in user count yet.

True, although most wealth is held in the form of things other than money, which represent a legal right to power over various things, like who can live in what house, and what thousands of people at a company will spend their time working on.

The comic is about the meta issue so it’s not quite the same imo

One time I was biking and someone coming the other way smiled at me. There was nothing to the interaction beyond that few seconds but somehow it was just such a powerful smile it made my whole week and I still remember it.

I would say, whichever one is polling highest, who has signaled support in any way for the issue. Other things about them don’t matter because they aren’t going to win anyway. In this case a lot of third party votes for a single candidate are probably better than the same number of votes spread across different candidates because it looks more like an organized voting block to politicians looking at the numbers in retrospect, who are the reason to vote at all if you are voting third party, you are trying to communicate via those numbers about how your vote can be obtained or lost.

If it wasn’t clear, I am not claiming that AI is better than a person at summarizing complex information.

The AI summaries were judged significantly weaker across all five metrics used by the evaluators, including coherency/consistency, length, and focus on ASIC references. Across the five documents, the AI summaries scored an average total of seven points (on ASIC’s five-category, 15-point scale), compared to 12.2 points for the human summaries.

The focus on the (now-outdated) Llama2-70B also means that “the results do not necessarily reflect how other models may perform” the authors warn.

to assess the capability of Generative AI (Gen AI) to summarise a sample of public submissions made to an external Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiry, looking into audit and consultancy firms

In the final assessment ASIC assessors generally agreed that AI outputs could potentially create more work if used (in current state), due to the need to fact check outputs, or because the original source material actually presented information better. The assessments showed that one of the most significant issues with the model was its limited ability to pick-up the nuance or context required to analyse submissions.

The duration of the PoC was relatively short and allowed limited time for optimisation of the LLM.

So basically this study concludes that Llama2-70B with basic prompting is not as good as humans at summarizing documents submitted to the Australian government by businesses, and its summaries are not good enough to be useful for that purpose. But there are some pretty significant caveats here, most notably the relative weakness of the model they used (I like Llama2-70B because I can run it locally on my computer but it’s definitely a lot dumber than ChatGPT), and how summarization of government/business documents is likely a harder and less forgiving task than some other things you might want a generated summary of.