I guess this section seems to indicate otherwise: “Like everyone else, you see issues in your environment - but unlike most people, you actually try to understand them and find solutions. And for that, you get nothing but pain.”

But I will take you at your word that you were more commiserating than directly agreeing. The internet in general is leading to more tribalism, sure, but I’m not seeing it any more on Lemmy than I am elsewhere. Mostly seeing it as it relates to politics. Would you mind sharing where you’re seeing that? Have you noticed specific communities or instances or topics? I follow a variety of content and it’s mostly pretty chill people with some political vitriol sprinkled in for novelty sake.

I don’t know if you’re a guy, but honestly really amazing display of allyship right here. Regardless, congrats on explaining things so succinctly. This is exactly correct.

But their comment objectively is less productive than the “angry posts”, because their comment was against the rules and deleted and not engaged with, whereas the “angry posts” are there for the community to engage with and offer sympathy and understanding and a place to vent. It’s a kind of weird martyr complex that nobody asked for. Oh, woe is me, I got banned for breaking the rules! Why even comment in the first place if you knew it was going to be deleted? Elsewhere someone provided context that they did not comment on a “Meta” post. It was just a post complaining about how people treat the community. It was not at all soliciting advice or external opinions. They then went out of their way to break the rules and essentially prove the post right. Essentially showing that they think they are above the rules and that their opinion deserves to be heard regardless of what the user or the mods or the community has already expressed. Saying he was somehow “starting a discussion” makes no sense considering he knew that he would get banned and his comment removed. That was neither the time nor place to start any kind of discussion, and quite frankly I don’t think somebody attempting to have a good faith discussion would have it in that manner. If a transphobe went into a trans space that explicitly did not allow transphobes, and made a comment lamenting that they can’t ask questions in that community, would you still feel similarly? They just “see a wrong” in the world and are trying to start a discussion about it. Or would you think that it is OK for some spaces to have rules that are not up for discussion, especially within that space?

He might not have known that he would be getting banned from other subs, but as a user of several subs, I fully support admins taking steps to block people who willingly break rules of other marginalized communities. I think reasonable minds can disagree on this last point, but blahaj is pretty famous for being strict with bans even if not on the community/instance in question and the users of that instance actually really like that. I don’t know if this will be escalated, or if the ban will even stay in place, but my understanding is that people like that instance specifically because the mods there are so vigilant.

I’m not trying to get into an argument here, and based on your one sentence response, it seems like you’re not either, but angry posts in general don’t mean anything. I see a lot of angry posts about healthcare or the government or the increasing descent into fascism, and if somebody commented on any of those that they didn’t like seeing it, I wouldn’t necessarily think that comment was productive. Posts are allowed to be angry because people are allowed to be angry. Especially about injustice and oppression, which I imagine a lot of the “angry posts” are actually about, considering it’s a community of marginalized people for marginalized people. Just something to think about.

I posted elsewhere in this thread, but I don’t see how actively and knowingly posting while breaking the rules of a community is seen as posting in good faith. If they are soliciting opinions from their community, and you were not part of their community, then your opinion is not one they are looking for.

The people who made a woman only community are doing exactly what you think they should do. They are seeing the overwhelming hate being directed towards women in online spaces, and trying to create a space exclusively for women. You might not like that, but that is what they have chosen to do to fix what they see as an issue. I don’t see how you think OP is being the change he wants to see and that the mods are in the wrong. OP is not a woman and cannot speak to the female experience. Even within the female experience, plenty of people disagree. That’s why it’s great that there is plenty of space for other people to make their own communities. Going into a community that has made their stance clear, and is for people that regularly face hate and oppression, especially online, and deciding that is the big injustice you see in the world is certainly a choice. There are plenty of places and communities that openly spread hate not just for women, but for LGBT people of which OP says they are. Maybe they should spend time criticizing those spaces instead of picking on a group of already marginalized people who happen to have a single point of disagreement on how to run their space.

Edit to add that additional context has been provided. Apparently the post in question was not an meta discussion and there was no indication that peoples opinions were being solicited. In fact it was a complaint about the way people react towards the community.

So you broke rules on purpose in a community for people who experience oppression and are upset when other communities have solidarity with that community and don’t want people who break rules on purpose in their space. Just because other people break rules doesn’t mean you should. Posting while knowingly breaking rules is not actually posting in good faith.

The rules aren’t fuzzy. These mods are trying to protect spaces for vulnerable people and see that you don’t respect those spaces. Seems pretty cut and dry. If you don’t like the way those communities are run, make your own.

Edit to add that additional context has been provided. Apparently the post in question was not a meta discussion and there was no indication that peoples opinions were being solicited. In fact it was a complaint about the way people react towards the community.

I’m a woman and not on tinder, but I don’t know why people don’t like this. Anyone listing a height preference is not the kind of person you should be looking for, especially if you don’t fit their preference imho. It’s literally self filtering, though it did say it’s not fully blocking or anything.

I know women who would’ve loved that feature and I would never suggest any of my friends date them. Even after they dated guys that didn’t fit the criteria and amicably split, they still held firm to the idea. I think it’s ok to have preferences, but this is dumb to filter for and people are dumb to want to match with these people.

Part of it is likely that she is a famous woman who is not known for being sexualized and is considered a public figure. No one wants to have the scientific standard be “I used pics of this girl I had a crush on” so I imagine famous people are good to pick from. I imagine Merkel also doesn’t have a lot of bikini pics AI can draw from (some amount of swimming pics are unfortunately always available for public figures for some reason) so you can be sure it’s generated them from nothing. If you used a famous model, there may be a possibility it is using pics of them to model their chest. If you’re testing what it does with random inputs, using Merkel is probably a good option.

As far as the output being what was requested, I think the issue can vary depending on your view of AI so I am just going to leave that part unanswered because if it’s a problem or not relies so much on your priors.

Very true. I remember people listening to a local station not because of their music, but they had the best traffic coverage. It was the generic top billboard songs station, so maybe that skewed perception, but plenty of people only tuned in on their way to work for the traffic and would listen to other stations if given the option otherwise. I totally forgot about that.

I think a lot of the job is a hold over from a pre Internet era. Yes, stations do you have to regularly state what channel you’re listening to, but before the Internet DJs provided pretty useful information regarding what was playing. You couldn’t just look up on the fly the lyrics of a song to find out the name or the band, or if they were playing in your area.

DJs used to give listeners that information, and potentially provide additional context or similar bands that would be of interest. It was hard to get that information at the time. I know some relatively young people who still listen to DJ morning shows, but they listen for the skits And humor, not for the music insights. At this point, I don’t think there’s really much need for them, but I imagine nobody wants to be the first to fully get rid of them. I imagine people are upset about this, but I don’t know that they would be any less upset if they just decided to do away with DJs altogether.

Regarding the post title, I didn’t mean to indicate it being your decision, just that the title in general feels misleading, seeing as no argument is presented and it purports to be about “why” you should do something.

I don’t really know a lot about the difference between instances, so I can’t really opine on that. From what I’m seeing, it does look as though people are having a discussion, they just don’t seem to agree with the idea as presented.

I’m not saying it has to be longer format. I’m saying no argument is made. She could have gave ai the same prompt but with a please and compared the results. I have done so below. She could have used the irrelevant middle section to just display screenshots.

It’s fine if you think people should be polite to ai. I think that’s great, but if you feel that way regardless of effect on response quality then this video doesn’t really make that point either. I think a post saying that and offering your personal opinions might’ve prompted more discussion on that topic rather than just disagreement with a video that doesn’t make that argument.

Here are two prompt comparisons. There is imho no difference in quality when saying please. The same results can be seen regardless of prompt length or how polite I was, I just chose short examples that could have been used in a video if they actually illustrated her point.

List five animals

Here are five animals:

1. Lion
2. Octopus
3. Koala
4. Penguin
5. Jaguar

List five animals please

Here are five animals:

1. Tiger
2. Dolphin
3. Raccoon
4. Falcon
5. Elephant

Create a limerick about being polite

There once was a person so fine, Whose manners were truly divine. They’d say “please” with a grin, And “thank you” within, And their politeness was truly sublime.

Create a limerick about being polite please

There once was a person so bright, Whose politeness was a delight. They’d hold doors with care, And listen with flair, And their kindness was always in sight.

What do you mean you don’t buy my argument? My argument that it is more detrimental to workers than owners? Then I’m not sure you understand capitalism, because money in workers pockets is inherently more impactful than money in a capitalists bank account. It’s a drop in the ocean for large corporations, but can be the difference between food or housing or healthcare to a worker. The company would be spending that money anyways, so it’s already accounted for. The nominal cost of recruitment is just going to come from a salary at the end of the day. All it does is serve to incentivize companies adding extra hoops to the hiring process and potentially screening out real people or causing extra stress/work to apply. This will not discourage workers from applying, since you know, the threat of capitalism still looms large and worker protections are low and are being dismantled day by day.

If you’re not coming from an anti capitalist place, then you’re right, I don’t get it.

I get where you’re coming from, but it’s pretty clear they are saying the fake applicants would not actually be doing the work. They are just taking the place of people actually out there looking for jobs and making the job search that much harder. Capitalists aren’t suffering from this as much as workers are suffering from it.

I think the issue is the post title. If the title was “role-based prompt engineering” you probably wouldn’t have gotten as many comments and certainly not as many disagreeing. She says she’s going to make a case for using please, and then fails to provide any actual examples of that. Pointing that out isn’t sanctimonious, nor does it mean people are being rude to AI. If you want to make a moral argument for it go ahead, but it seems like she’s attempting to propose a technical argument and then just doesn’t. For what it’s worth, I generally try and leave out superfluous words from prompts, in the same way that googling full sentences was previously less likely to result in a good answer than just key words. AI is not human. It’s a tool. If being rude to it ensured it would stop hallucinating, I don’t think it’d make you a bad person if you were rude to it.

There’s a comment here talking about antisocial behavior in gaming, and imho, if you without hesitation kick a dog in a video game, I’m not sure I’d view you the same way after. Plenty of people talk about how they struggle to do evil play throughs because they don’t like using rude options for npcs. Not saying please to AI doesn’t make you a psychopath.

She didn’t make that point at all. She starts with “not because of the robot apocalypse” meanders in the middle about ‘prompt engineering’ aka telling ai what manner you want it to respond in - Shakespearean, technical, encyclopedic - (yea, we know) then ends with “it’s better to be polite”. It’s clickbait. She literally does not address why saying please is important outside of the last sentence where she said it’s better to be polite. Saved you a click.

Kinda depends on your perspective. It costs advertisers money and pays the website you’re visiting. If it’s a shitty site with a lot of ads, you’re effectively encouraging them putting in more ads. Since you’re “clicking” on every ad, and it’s not affecting your experience, it sends a message that stuffing the page with all those ads is good for revenue. It also just charges advertisers. I don’t personally think running ads inherently makes a company bad, so in my opinion clicking on ads out of spite so they get charged for a useless click is kind of not a great solution imho. It seems like it kinda benefits the wrong people, unless you’re exclusively going to great websites running ads for terrible companies.

In this post it seems as though smart is being used to mean completely replacing the thing. I think that having both smart and dumb options is ideal, but in this particular context I think the reference point is that the smart object does not allow a manual override.

I agree with the overall sentiment, but a smart switch would be harder to change than a smart bulb most of the time. Smart switch would require electrical work to replace. A smart bulb can just be swapped. If anything the toilet is a good proxy. A smart flush means it won’t manually flush. If they had done a smart fill you could just manually fill the tank with water.

I had a family member call me because they were having difficulty with a light switch. They’re not dumb, just set in their ways and can’t be bothered to learn something else. Plenty of these people don’t like change just because it’s different. They got confused when windows started doing the rotating desktop pictures because they didn’t realize it was still their desktop. Do I think they could eventually use Linux? Probably. Do I want to deal with even more questions? No. Could they install it themselves? Absolutely not without help.

3 per year. 10 per lifetime. To my understanding that’s been the standard since a limit was introduced.