Imagine having someone tell you that despite a right leaning tendency, they still vote for Democrats.

And then you swoop in and tell them they’re a giant piece of shit.

You know that your behavior is literally what Russian troll farms are intended to cultivate as per the Muler report, right?

Tell me you didn’t finish reading even one complete sentence before responding, without telling me you didn’t even read one complete sentence before responding.

Yes. It’s just regurgitating whatever was in the training set.

That makes sense as long as you’re not writing code that needs to know how to do something as complex as …checks original post… count.

No, so they can restaff w/ H1B

What value is there you knowing my expression of ARHGAP1? What about TP53BP1?

Yeah, or someone will die because lab result baselines that are dependent on sex get fucked up.

Politics need to stay the fuck out of medicine. Having people try and do a political dance around lab science is a recipe for disaster.

Yes it is, and saying it isn’t is normalizing a terrifying thing.

The crux of your argument is that someone isn’t lying is nobody believes them. Ergo, Donald Trump isn’t a liar.

This is the EXACT fucking playbook you see in Russia and North Korea. The way you are thinking right now is SPECIFICALLY how dictators WANT you to think. It excuses lies and paves the way to the concept of there being no such thing as objective truth because everyone is lying anyways, but they’re not even lies because you were never going to believe it anyways. You’ll just exhaustedly shrug and choose a dissonance that’s a lower energy mental state.

That’s irrelevant. When he says “I believe X”, he is professing that he believes something. Just because we know he’s lying doesn’t mean he isn’t saying it.

That kinda logic scares the hell out of me, btw. People are just so numb to it that it’s like their brains are short circuiting.

So what you’re saying is he professes to have beliefs which he doesn’t actually have?

Would be nice if open-source aggregators like Lemmy allowed users to “Subscribe” to community developed algorithms.

I’d love to (attempt) to build an “ethical” algorithm for content sorting, have it be open-source, and be able to have clients use it without having to actually modify the client itself.

If this is what you’re seeing, the problem isn’t the employees.

If you can say with a straight face that employees prefer to be micromanaged, that’s the biggest, brightest, blinding red flag I can even imagine.

If you’re seeing this, your company has a major issue.

Goldeneye64 : 1997 JIRA : 2002

You have to get people hooked on your product, though.

If they and every other AI company just evaporated no one would really be bothered.

You can’t capitalize a market that doesn’t really exist.

It depends on the jurisdiction.

In Alberta, Canada, for example, employers will hire programmers from two distinct pools of educational streams: Computer Scientists and Software Engineers.

CS programs are governed by the faculties of science, software engineers by the schools of engineering.

The software engineers take the same oaths or whatever and belong to the same organization as the other engineers (in Alberta, APEGA) and are subject the same organizational requirements to be able to describe themselves as engineers. They can have the designation revoked the same way a civil engineer could.

Practically speaking, as someone who works with both, I don’t see a meaningful difference in the actual work produced by grads of either stream. But at least in my jurisdiction the types of arguments being made don’t really hold because it is a regulated professional designation.

To be honest, I actually don’t really appreciate human moderation, so that’s probably biasing my position.

I can block communities. I can block users. I can set word filters.

If I block someone, I never have to hear from them again. If a moderator does, they’ll be back with a new account, and then I DO have to hear from them.

I’d far prefer a “federated” and crowdsourced mechanism to layer onto an extremely lightly moderated foundational layer.

If someone, or someones, want to curate a filter list that aligns with my sensibilities, awesome, I’ll opt in. I’ll contribute. If I bump into unresolvable issues with other filter curators I’ll fork the filter.

I don’t need or want a tiny subset of users working full time for free getting burnt out or going on power trip crusades.

The quote I was referencing is this:

“People - Please don’t make the life of your mods a living hell. Anything that is celebrating violence is going to get taken down - if not from us, then from reddit. I think all the mods understand that there is a high level of frustration and antipathy towards insurance and insurance execs, but we also understand that murdering people in the streets is not good. We are a public group of medical professionals, we still need to act like that.”

The line about making their lives a living hell?

If you ever feel the need to type that in reference to your volunteer Reddit moderation… Stand up, go outside.

Why the fuck would the moderators care about how much work it is to remove the posts.

I don’t think it’s at all required that someone gained “a level of control”. I think the mechanism more likely at play (if this is the root cause) is that some training data included news articles about how these people wanted to remove their presence, and the articles were talking about the legality and morality around it.

The definition as taken to the courts in the USA is:

“Hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin.”

It has more rigorous legal definitions in many other jurisdictions where hate speech is explicitly illegal.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Canada for example.

You characterizing toxicity and hate speech as being related isn’t a position taken even remotely seriously by anyone who actually write laws on the subject, and many have been written across the world.

Broadly speaking, hate speech isn’t “being mean” in any legal definition… But that is what right-wing talking heads like to strawman it as.