Its not acting like afd to not take any more illigal immigrants, it would be if we put them in camps together with all Muslims and ship them back. Wich we don’t do.
It’s STILL not good, as you stated. Not good in any way. Do you know, what it does mean, if other countries don’t take the people arriving at the south coasts of Europe?
Yeah. Who cares about dying people, we could save.
What an utterly egoistic and unhuman point of view.
I bet my ass you would be under the first waves of people to flee / migrate if there would be major crisis in your land with no forseable end for the next 20 years.
We can’t save them, we have our own problems and if its not politically possible, than that’s it. Otherwise we risk far right gaining more and more voters.
And no. Id rather bite the dust than leave my house. Also, if everyone runs away there is of course no future.
What problem do we actually have that cannot be solved anymore by taking them in. What problem do you have, by letting them in.
And no, those people fleeing can’t solve the problems of their own region. Otherwise they wouldn’t leave their home. Also: Many problem those country have are not home made, but do origin in countries like the USA, Germany and many other rich countries.
And yes: Your world view is very far right. Accept it or not, I don’t care as I might not change your non altruistic thinking.
You can’t help the world. Death is part of life. There is nothing you can do to stop it. Death is a certainty, but do you want to support millions, if not billions, of people who can’t feed or have trouble feeding themselves? You seem to have an affinity for certain type of people, who make up the majority of humanity.
Its not so much in defiance as much as embracing his new pet as you or I would comfort our dog. Russia will be totally dependent on China for everything at the end of this.
I’m actually wondering what is censorship. Because if you are going to include every nonsense blog and asshat that has some unfounded garbage to spew, the quality of your product will potentially be garbage. So you end up with the question on what sources to include, and you probably end up with authorative sources that are regarded higher.
The issue we already see with Google search is that seo spam and generated websites that all form a large circle jerk are setup to fool the algorithm. This will be the case for llms as well. The longer they are in use the better people will understand how to game the system. And then bad actors will get these things to say whatever they want.
I don’t know a solution, but my guess is that it lies in what used to happen for the encyclopedia Britannica etc… large pools of experts that curate the underlaying sources. Like in libraries etc.
Censorship is simply intentionally limiting the information that someone else has available to them, and it is bad. Let them curate their own information, that’s fine, but they should have choice over what they see.
I disagree. The whole “buyer beware” does not work. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. Plenty of people out there are not able to curate their own content and rely on others to do it for them. Librarians, curators, there are jobs specifically for that purpose.
I think it is time… no overdue, that proper curation takes over again. But the task is so enormous that it will be a challenge to figure out how this is done properly. And… commercial entities will always have incentives that are not aligned with that of the broader populace… so there is that.
Nah, I think the solution is simpler: multiple competing algorithms. Gaming one system is pretty easy, gaming 5 isn’t. So if a search company wants to always have the top results, they need to swap between a handful of good search algorithms to keep SEO hunters at bay.
Hiring experts is certainly a good idea, but due to the sheer size of the internet, it’s not going to be feasible.
As for the original discussion about censorship in search, I take it to mean intentional hiding or demotion of relevant results due to the content of those results. SEO spam isn’t relevant because it’s not what the customer is likely wanting, so hiding/demoting it doesn’t count as censorship imo.
Individual instances can and do but decentralization means everyone can spin one up with your own rules.
I bet if you looked around there be plenty of lawless absolutist instances that allow all manners of free speech but non will adhere exactly to your own moral ideals besides the one you made yourself.
Ideally the user would be in complete control of what gets censored for them. The service should simply flag content by category and the user could selectively show/hide content.
If you train your large language model on all the internet’s bullshit and don’t want bullshit to come out, there’s not a lot of good options. Garbage in, garbage out
Yes, false information is technically undesirable, but that’s not really what that word is trying to convey. The goal should be accurate information, not agreeable information. If the truth is objectionable/offensive, it should still be easily findable.
Maybe it’s regional or something. I’m in Sweden and my nest have no problems answering questions about the holocaust and will happily quote Wikipedia for anything you ask
This is a little less dickish than it sounds. They were late returning from a private event, and so the ship left their passports with the port agent. If the ship misses the tide it’s a 12 hour delay for everyone and probably means missing another port of call. No assholes here
There is a reason you only go on excursions provided by the cruise ship company. You pay more but they won’t leave you behind, if you take a private tour you run the risk of not getting back on time and being left behind.
worldnews
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.