2023-01-24 06:09:19
2023-01-11 05:12:26
2023-01-11 05:11:44
1373000
!Friendica Support Do we have an idea...?
Why is my news feed schizophrenic?
My news feed on Mastadon/Fediverse has a split personality. Sometimes the feed is filled with a certain profile of people (teenager/cutesy/twee/animal pictures/lefty) sometimes another (more right/way older/etc). It looks like there's a bot or a series of bots switching between two sets of k means clustered sets of profiles and I have no idea how this is happening or a way to tailor what I want to see. How is the set of posts determined?
If this turns out to be algorithmically determined again like on Facebook I'm abandoning ship.
Spencer
•Given the tone and tenor of that person's other posts, they seem quick to anger and judgment. I hope they find answers to their question, and also, thank you for alerting me to someone I prefer to defederate from.
Peter Weyand
•Kristian
•@Spencer@Friendica Support
VegOS
•https://axbom.com/fediverse/
https://fediverse.party
Peter Weyand
•VegOS
•Peter Weyand
•I also believe that it is possible (and I believe that I've witnessed this happening) where if I block a bot then the server that originated the bot will detect this and in retaliation link to something else even worse. So for example, if I block a bot that comes up with memes related to climate change then my feed ends up being filled with neonazism subsequently. I don't know exactly how this occurs - it may be that malicious bots upvote certain content and downvote certain content so that when they're banned the feed just becomes polluted in another way. It may be that there are mechanisms in the offending server to message other servers to follow me and then subscri... show more
I also believe that it is possible (and I believe that I've witnessed this happening) where if I block a bot then the server that originated the bot will detect this and in retaliation link to something else even worse. So for example, if I block a bot that comes up with memes related to climate change then my feed ends up being filled with neonazism subsequently. I don't know exactly how this occurs - it may be that malicious bots upvote certain content and downvote certain content so that when they're banned the feed just becomes polluted in another way. It may be that there are mechanisms in the offending server to message other servers to follow me and then subscribe bots.
I can't say for certain the mechanism that is causing this - all I can say is that I can look at my feed and I can say for certain there are wild swings in the type of content that I'm seeing from banning suspicious meme driven content. I can also say that the content that I'm seeing comes in clustered "types" that match a certain set of psychological profiles for what a user would like to see. I believe this is done in order to either promote a certain belief system in order to either sell a product or get someone to vote or act in a certain way.
I'm saying that the Activity Pub software is constructed in such a way that the entire Global Feed system is broken to the point of uselessness because of chatGPT software and automated bots. There is no way to verify for certain on here who is a human being and who isn't (and I don't think that public key cryptography works any more given chatGPT can mimic human generated text).
Is this your problem? Probably not. Activity Pub is a W3 standard now, for better or worse. I'm just saying it doesn't work as advertised and it's obvious to anyone who uses this software that it's design is able to manipulate others.
I believe the user base is comprised of three types of people -
Those who know this. These people are making the bots in order to manipulate the user base and ultimately cash in or are social media types that know how to appease the new algorithm masters and say the right memes so that they can cash in. These are people that are intentionally manipulating people (that is controlling what information they see and thereby controlling how they think and act). These people are evil. I don't know any other word for it.
There are those that know this is going on but don't want to participate, don't know how to cash in, or both. We're the outsiders in a system that we see becoming worse than Twitter. You knew who the owners were, it weren't some shadowy cabal that would only come to light when the whole thing came crashing to the ground spectacularly (and it will). Some people have few friends and don't link to the global feed. Some people are treated like dupes or have their reputation smeared by people they annoy.
Again, go to any of the sites using the Pleroma software that has more than 20 people and look to see if the site isn't almost entirely bots. Is this your problem because you are running Friendica? It is if any of your users link to that site or have followers to the nth degree that link to that site. Behold the Glory that is Activity Pub!
And then, there's everyone else who has the intelligence of a hamster and personally I couldn't tell if their shitposting were different than a robot if I tried.
Take all this for what you will. If you want to call me a nutter that's fine, but if you don't take a hard look at Pleroma or how the Activity Pub software works then it's just name calling. My Global Feed is borked and it's because this software doesn't work as advertised.
Kristian
•(a) Size. One of the frequently-annou... show more
(a) Size. One of the frequently-announced thing is that the Fediverse should grow around small instances, in best cases individual instances. Knowing this is difficult, this might fix your problem seen on instances > 20 people. Get yourself a small crowd of people you trust and roll your own, knowing to block or defederate servers that cause havoc or are annoying to you and yours.
(b) ChatGPT and recognizing ML generated content. Sure, I think it's more than likely that ChatGPT and similar tools could be "weaponized" in such a way. This feels threatening, but I don't see this to be something a protocol such as ActivityPub could ever prevent. Maybe you have some suggestions on how to handle that?
(c) I don't get that last part of your messages ("... it's because this software doesn't work as advertised"). What exactly do you mean by that?
@VegOS
VegOS
•Kristian
•Filtered word: nsfw
VegOS
•…ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ jesuisatire bitPickup
•@Kristian @VegOS @Peter Weyand
I absolutely can confirm Peter's claim, same over here.
Not going to discuss this, much less with some maybe bot that's set to make me loose time or energy.
The issue ends up on the instance level, big instances, no check on the users and abusers .. bad.
From that perspective @ Eugen has or might have some issues because the biggest instances are build by him. I recon that's good for several reasons, like testing and scaling, but if they become polluters, I'm going to do the same with them than I did with some chatBOT that just ran out of code when I called "him" out.
The world we live in is not Eugen's fault.
If this goes on I'll start to publicly call out sites that apparently are the worst representatives as unsave, block them and ask my respective admins and community to block them to.
Those are our tools and we'll have to work it out.
Anyone really believes "they" will allow us to happen just like that?
Kristian
•This is an interesting take that made me think very much. Maybe that's a dimension of the whole ChatGPT and ML "mess" we didn't even consider so far - does the mere existence of these tool also call for a new line of "defense" in our reasoning and communication, claiming we can't or won't try clarifying our views to each other because there's a legit assumption we're "just" discussing with a bot? That's quite scary.
That aside, well, I agree on that last part: Those are our tools and we'll have to work it out. Following Peters statement, I somehow get the feeling that there's an assumption of possibilities offered by ActivityPub which the protocol simply can't provide, and most likely both because it was never meant... show more
This is an interesting take that made me think very much. Maybe that's a dimension of the whole ChatGPT and ML "mess" we didn't even consider so far - does the mere existence of these tool also call for a new line of "defense" in our reasoning and communication, claiming we can't or won't try clarifying our views to each other because there's a legit assumption we're "just" discussing with a bot? That's quite scary.
That aside, well, I agree on that last part: Those are our tools and we'll have to work it out. Following Peters statement, I somehow get the feeling that there's an assumption of possibilities offered by ActivityPub which the protocol simply can't provide, and most likely both because it was never meant to do so and because these are social not technical issues and need to be addressed on a social not technical level. So far, I have yet to see a valid solution for all this "trust" issue that works without having met a human being "in person" once and exchanged some sort of "credential" that allows for re-recognizing them online as well. But hasn't it been like this ever since? Was that different back then in the age of mailing lists or news groups? It doesn't seem new, just more ... difficult with the arise of ChatGPT et al...?
@VegOS
@Peter Weyand
Peter Weyand
•What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. The promise of Activity Pub is that there should be chat rooms of less than 20 people. Ok...isn't that what a websocket is?
Activity Pub is premised on this. Client talks to server. Server sockets to several other clients. Server also connects to other servers (Activity Pub!) to distribute content, which then socket to their own clients. I'm saying this is broken, because if any of the friends that I connect to outside of my server then connects to a server that is bot infested then my global feed is filled with bots which show misinformation.
Ok, so I'll grant. If I'm on server A and some other guy is on server B I can connect to him and we can talk and I can see his posts. But I can't "follow" him, because I don't know that what he follows or those he follows to the nth degree aren't bots. S... show more
What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. The promise of Activity Pub is that there should be chat rooms of less than 20 people. Ok...isn't that what a websocket is?
Activity Pub is premised on this. Client talks to server. Server sockets to several other clients. Server also connects to other servers (Activity Pub!) to distribute content, which then socket to their own clients. I'm saying this is broken, because if any of the friends that I connect to outside of my server then connects to a server that is bot infested then my global feed is filled with bots which show misinformation.
Ok, so I'll grant. If I'm on server A and some other guy is on server B I can connect to him and we can talk and I can see his posts. But I can't "follow" him, because I don't know that what he follows or those he follows to the nth degree aren't bots. So what? I'm supposed to use a local feed of known users and follow their stuff only? How do I discover other people's content unless I use the regular old internet or meet someone in person?
By work as advertised I mean there should be a way to use the global feed in Friendica (or Activity Pub generally). As far as playing wack-a-mole with every instance of software that comes up by adding it to a ban list, that's like asking a website owner to add every website in the world to a robots.txt file or they give their email address and cell phone number to everyone that goes to their website.
As far as how to fix this? Oh geez, I don't know that it's possible at this point. I've thought of complicated ways of trading public keys layered on top of the Activity Pub protocol, but there would have to be a way of verifying that someone wasn't a chatGPT bot and I don't think that's currently possible. I think public key encryption over the internet is broken. And it's not a matter of "I know you're not a bot and you know I'm not a bot". Activity Pub is made so "I need to know that you're not a bot and you don't follow bots and they don't follow bots and then don't..."
What Activity Pub to me is right now is a websocket client with a way of connecting to other websocket clients and a button next to it that says "Global Feed" which instead should say "Here there be Dragons".
Kristian
•@VegOS
Hypolite Petovan
•Kristian
•@VegOS
@Peter Weyand
Peter Weyand
•@Hypolite Petovan
@VegOS
@Kristian
Is this person even real? If so, is this their account or has it been created by someone else or a bot (without their consent)? If so is there content feed being created by a chatBOT or not? If not then are all the replies to this thread created by content bots or not? If the content is created by comment bots what is the bot maker's intent?
Question 1 may be verifiable. Question 2 maybe not. Question 3 they may actively lie to you. Question 4 who knows. Question 5 falls into the realm of speculation
... show more@Hypolite Petovan
@VegOS
@Kristian
Is this person even real? If so, is this their account or has it been created by someone else or a bot (without their consent)? If so is there content feed being created by a chatBOT or not? If not then are all the replies to this thread created by content bots or not? If the content is created by comment bots what is the bot maker's intent?
Question 1 may be verifiable. Question 2 maybe not. Question 3 they may actively lie to you. Question 4 who knows. Question 5 falls into the realm of speculation of a psychological manipulator.
Given that I've replied to this thread, does that mean that every chatbot in the thread now sees that I'm a dupe that took the bait? Does this mean that I'm added to the "mark" category and more such stupidity will be in the global feed. View my comment here (https://libranet.de/display/0b6b25a8-1663-be04-01a0-62c688308763) and view all the rest of the comments in the thread (https://mastodon.social/@Sheril/109667481087367875). Is no one responding because I'm being a dick, or are all of these comments one line hot takes from bots attempting to upvote someone on PBS who wants people to watch her show and get her post and her pretty face in as many global feeds as possible?
Grandma sitting at home thinks this woman is popular on the internet and will watch her show. Idiots with guns will think that their chosen shiboleth is popular on the internet with "cool" reactionary fascists. Everyone else will tune out and realize the game is rigged - that's not good when you're all out here trying to "remake" the internet. The machine the stupid monkeys that discovered fire decided to hook their entire culture to.
And this is an easy example. Shit, for all I know this woman's trying to prove a point by being this transparent. I've speculated above that the way that bots interact with posts downstream from me can manipulate the social graph of k-means clustered social interactions, but I'd have to dive into the Activity Pub protocol to see how they're doing this or the number of bots required.
This isn't a "pretend" problem. This is a "there is no way to tell information from disinformation" problem. The Kremlin no longer has to pay some group of underpaid interns in Latvia to pretend to be angry Americans, now you can automate the invective.
This is serious. People act in real life based on what they read and how they interact with the internet. Many people change their behaviors just slightly enough that in the aggregate it can sway elections, cause products to be bought, or wars to be fought. If you think you're immune, boy, have I got news for you.
If you're bots, I don't particularly care. I'm writing this in large part as a record of rhetoric that I can use for myself later, much like an interactive diary. What you're building has no safeguards for how *people* work and it's going to cause a total shitstorm when it breaks.
Kristian
•@Hypolite Petovan@VegOS@Friendica Support@Peter Weyand
Peter Weyand
•In a media empire there is an editor and someone who is ultimately responsible for running the business. The buck stops at someone. There are W2s so you know which reporter is being paid to write what story.
This is an entirely other beast. This will end badly.
Kristian
•@Hypolite Petovan
@VegOS
…ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ jesuisatire bitPickup
•Although the description of the problem itself is true, and the level of language quite outstanding, we are just facing same problems, same shit, in a different way.
For example, algos to feed us what we want to see (or the contrary) are normal on the other sites. So that "lady" normally just sell's you some ad's or lure you to sex.com. AI as in the means of understanding and semantics interpretation is a real threat and danger to society, I guess much worse in wallet gardens as out here where we are, where we might uncover them or evade them easier.
btw
friendica has also a positive server list as restriction too, that's most likely one of the features to have in mind also.
Peter Weyand
•It's always about the money.
Sad, but true.
People aren't making these botnets for no reason other than the lolz - OK maybe some are. What the majority of them are doing is they are attempting to convert attention into money, by cornering the market.
You don't know who they are. With a newspaper you do know who they are. That's the difference.
Kristian
•Geo Rg
•Kristian
•... show more
https://jlottosen.wordpress.com/2022/11/08/how-do-you-eat-a-mastodon/
https://jlottosen.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/12b1b5e24edb287e.jpg?w=743
Das sind Algorithmen, die haben Randbedingungen und Eigenschaften, und wenn ich die Eigenschaften kenne, kann ich manipulieren, indem ich mit diesen Eigenschaften arbeite. Beispielskonstrukt: Ich habe eine chronologische Timeline, also werden Posts nach Datum absteigend einsortiert. So eine Timeline kann ich potentiell "fluten", indem ich in loser Folge extrem viel poste - dann sehen Leute, die mich in ihrer Home-Timeline oder meine Instanz in ihrer förderierten Timeline haben, quasi nur das, was ich will, oder müssen extrem viel scrollen (Algorithmen bei Twitter, Instagram, Flickr ... unterbinden das ganz gut). Oder: Ich erzeuge eine Instanz, auf der nur Unsinn gepostet wird (etwa von Bots, die in hoher Frequenz viel Content generieren). Wenn ich dort einen plausiblen Nutzer bekomme, dem jemand anders auf einer anderen Instanz folgt (oder mehrere Nutzer auf anderen Instanzen erzeuge, die meinem Nutzer auf meiner bösen Instanz folgen), dann wird die förderierte Timeline der anderen Instanz auch diesen ganzen Kram anzeigen. Das ist vereinfacht abstrakt formuliert; ich hab keine Idee, ob und wie die gängigen Implementationen (Mastodon, Friendica, ...) das technisch irgendwie unterbinden.
Lösungen wären etwa: Suspekten Nutzern oder Nutzern von suspekten Instanzen nicht folgen. Oder diese Instanz stummschalten / blocken. Oder erkennbare Accounts, die zu viel posten, stummschalten. Oder ...? Herausforderung dabei: Erkennt man, ob der Content, der gepostet wird, "Unfug" ist oder nicht? Ich glaube, Kernprobleme sind hier grundsätzliche Erwartungshaltung an die zugrundeliegende Technologie und Systeme sowie schwierige Vorstellung vom Begriff "Algorithmus". In den Beiträgen bzw Fragen hier scheinen mir sehr viele Dinge durcheinanderzugehen, die irgendwie miteinander interagieren, aber potentiell verschiedene Probleme sind.
🕊️ Das Leben ist schön
•Das Blocken von Instanzen ist ein schlechtes Mittel. Das Blocken und/oder Stummschalten einzelner Accounts wird schnell zur Mammutaufgabe bei steigenden Nutzerzahlen, so handhabe ich das aber derzeit...
Kristian
•@Georg aus Bakum
Geo Rg
•Peter Weyand
•Danke Kristian, du hast das Problem verstanden. Ich sage nicht, dass Friendica oder Mastadon einen Algorithmus verwenden. Da Activity Pub es mehreren Servern ermöglicht, sich zu verbinden, können Botnetze stattdessen die Art und Weise nutzen, wie sich Server verbinden, um Benutzer zu manipulieren. Es sind die Botnets (und diese Bots), die ihre eigenen internen Algorithmen zur Manipulation des Netzwerks haben. Das ist in vielerlei Hinsicht *schlimmer*, denn statt einer zentralen Instanz, die bekannt ist und kritisiert werden kann, gibt es jetzt mehrere Schatteninstanzen, die den Informationsfluss kontrollieren, die unbekannt sind. Offensichtlich ist Geld im Spiel. Ich weiß nicht, was die Lö... show more
Danke Kristian, du hast das Problem verstanden. Ich sage nicht, dass Friendica oder Mastadon einen Algorithmus verwenden. Da Activity Pub es mehreren Servern ermöglicht, sich zu verbinden, können Botnetze stattdessen die Art und Weise nutzen, wie sich Server verbinden, um Benutzer zu manipulieren. Es sind die Botnets (und diese Bots), die ihre eigenen internen Algorithmen zur Manipulation des Netzwerks haben. Das ist in vielerlei Hinsicht *schlimmer*, denn statt einer zentralen Instanz, die bekannt ist und kritisiert werden kann, gibt es jetzt mehrere Schatteninstanzen, die den Informationsfluss kontrollieren, die unbekannt sind. Offensichtlich ist Geld im Spiel. Ich weiß nicht, was die Lösung ist (oder ob es eine gibt), und weil Activity Pub so beliebt wird, mache ich mir Sorgen, dass diese Bots das Verhalten der Menschen manipulieren können. Aber das *ist* ein Problem. Vielen Dank, dass Sie die Erklärung auf Deutsch an Ihre deutschen Kollegen geschrieben haben - Sie haben meinen Punkt genau erklärt.
Geo Rg
•Kristian
•Interessant etwa auch: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2022/11/mastodon-stampede/ : Wenn ich einen Link auf eine Website ins Fediverse poste, werden die Instanzen, die diesen Link sehen, den Server, auf den verlinkt wird, kontaktieren. Konsequenz: Habe ich einen Link, der in großem Umfang förderiert wird, greifen plötzlich potentiell ein paar tausend Instanzen völlig unkoordiniert auf den Server zu, auf den der Link zeigt. Wenn der Link auf einen Webserver auf einem RaspPi hinter dünner Leitung oder ein System wie https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/ zeigt, kann das schon echt Stress bedeuten - oder umgekehrt die Anforderungen an Server- und Netzwerk-Ressourcen erhöhen, was wir aus verschiedenen Gründen (Stichwort mindestens Energiesparen) eigentlich nicht wollen.
Oder aber (hab den Link grad nicht mehr zur Hand) die Bitte eines Mastodon-Nutzers, große Videos bitte nicht über Mastodon zu teilen, weil das zur Konsequenz hat, dass die Videos (wie auch Bilder) vielfach zwischen Instanzen übertragen, lokal gespeichert werden und damit die Systeme voll-laufen lassen.
Das beides sind schon Dinge, die weder überraschen noch erschrecken, die aus meiner Sicht auch nicht grundsätzlich schlimm oder unbeherrschbar sind - aber eben Themen, an denen "zentrale" Systeme gewisse Vorteile haben können und mit denen sich die Fediverse-Community vermutlich irgendwann irgendwie beschäftigen will. Und die Frage, inwieweit Botnetze irgendwelchen Stuss tun können, indem sie die Systeme mit Content fluten, den man nicht will und maschinell schlecht filtern kann, wird möglicherweise auch dazugehören - siehe etwa auch die Qualität, die manche Spam- und Phishing-E-Mails dieser Tage haben und die so "gut" sind, dass diese Nachrichten selbst durch gute automatische Filter rutschen und Menschen Geld an Unbekannte überweisen.
@Das Leben ist schön@Peter Weyand
Geo Rg
•Geo Rg
•Geo Rg
•Geo Rg
•Kristian
•Geo Rg
•Kristian
•Geo Rg
•Peter Weyand
•https://libranet.de/display/0b6b25a8-1863-bef6-727e-28a384011484
Können Sie auf diesen Beitrag antworten? Ich kann nicht sagen, ob dies ein Bot-generierter Beitrag ist oder nicht.
Geo Rg
•Peter Weyand
•@Kristian
@Georg aus Bakum
So first - I wrote a little on this https://libranet.de/display/0b6b25a8-1663-c059-893e-32a454888815. In essence, in order for the internet to work there must be a way to pass messages remotely, there must be a way to confirm that the person on the other end of the message is a human being, and this way must be robust (that is, we must know believe that there isn't a chat bot in the future that would become sufficiently powerful that our verification method is broken).
This goes beyond SHA encryption. Public/private key encryption only works if we believe that two people can share a private key - that is, that I trust that the sender is human.
I think that there is a secondary problem, in that the way that Mastad
... show more@Kristian
@Georg aus Bakum
So first - I wrote a little on this https://libranet.de/display/0b6b25a8-1663-c059-893e-32a454888815. In essence, in order for the internet to work there must be a way to pass messages remotely, there must be a way to confirm that the person on the other end of the message is a human being, and this way must be robust (that is, we must know believe that there isn't a chat bot in the future that would become sufficiently powerful that our verification method is broken).
This goes beyond SHA encryption. Public/private key encryption only works if we believe that two people can share a private key - that is, that I trust that the sender is human.
I think that there is a secondary problem, in that the way that Mastadon is created is such that this problem is magnified. Not only do I have to be able to trust that you are human, but I have to trust that the people that you trust, that could be on other servers that have different following regimes that I may not understand, are also human. And I don't trust that. In fact, I believe (from experience) that the entire Pleroma following regime is incredibly bad. So if you have friends, who have friends, who are on Pleroma I now have to wonder how my global feed will be affected if I connect with you, if I have any interest in using the global feed whatsoever.
As for the first problem, I don't see a solution. I think that the only way that anyone will ever be able to ensure that two parties are human beings will be meeting in person and physically exchanging private keys. Everything else has now been compromised.
Also here's a fun one I found - suppose you want to jerk off to porn you find on the "fediverse". But you don't want the people you follow to be able to see that you jerk off to porn (or which porn). Enter https://mastinator.com/! Now you can anonymously follow anyone, even if they've previously blocked you. And because the "fediverse" is accept all/block offending in it's connection policy regime, as soon as https://mastinator.com/ is blocked https://mastinator2.com/ will be made! Which opens a new can of worms - if Activity Pub takes over the internet will that be the end of viewing the internet anonymously? If I can only see content from people I follow and vice versa, how am I able to view subversive content? In other words, how am I able to connect to Grandma, my employer, my friends, and my lover/relationship without them all interacting without having half a dozen accounts. And if I *do* have half a dozen accounts how would anyone believe that anything anyone has to say is sincere or meaningful? It's all of the downsides of a panopticon with none of the benefits of anonymity.
Mastinator
mastinator.comKristian
•As for that other part, that idea of anonymously viewing content, that somehow feels funny because it seems to completely oppose that other idea - if I want to have a system very keen on accessing content anonymously, isn't it the very idea to leave as little clues as possible about who a particular actor is? For that example you described, this is one of the arguments quite some of the fediverse propoments come up with when talking about different instances dedicated to particular subtopics, social communities, ... : Of course you don't want to have just one account in there everything is tied to. You want several accounts for things you want to keep separated, much alike most people I know (at least in tech) do have at least two Twitter accounts - one for business and professional stuff, one for personal stuff, and they are _very_ careful not to have any links between them. And I think the fediverse actually is rather good here - it's pretty easy to have accounts that are as anonymous as they probably could be. So most likely you won't block people just to make sure they don't see which porn you're looking at - why even bother if you can be reasonably sure no one else out there knows who "you" in this particular case are? If you do that, however, you end up with your initial problem again - you have no idea who hides behind a particular account, whether it's the person it claims to be, or whether it's a person at all. That's a bit unsatifying, but then again.... hasn't it always been this way? In usenet? In IRC? On mailing lists? Maybe the "solution" here is to, for situation in which it matters, choose tools that do the job as good as they can - and in others, know as much as possible about the shortcomings of a particular tool to still act in a responsible and safe manner? I don't have any ideas that improve that without making it much worse at the same time...
@Georg aus Bakum
Peter Weyand
•Du hast nicht auf meine Frage geantwortet, sondern auf deine Behauptung "Ich bin kein Bot". Ich habe keine Möglichkeit, dies zu wissen, und Sie haben keine Möglichkeit, dies zu bestätigen. Währenddessen zurück auf dem Mutterschiff...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34361651
https://blog.elevenlabs.io/enter-the-new-year-with-a-bang/
Geo Rg
•Kristian
•@Georg aus Bakum
Der Marek
•https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
Peter Weyand
•The Activity Pub algorithm enables this by its' design.
I think we will shortly see conflict of people attempting to alter people's perceptions of what reality through what they believe and how they believe it leading to armed conflict. We will go through a world wide period of unrest as many factions attempt to use AI in order to advance their own rh... show more
The Activity Pub algorithm enables this by its' design.
I think we will shortly see conflict of people attempting to alter people's perceptions of what reality through what they believe and how they believe it leading to armed conflict. We will go through a world wide period of unrest as many factions attempt to use AI in order to advance their own rhetorical objectives with AIs competing for dominance. Now, truth, much like crypto, is dependent on the amount of computational power that is put behind any algorithm.
And I still don't know for certain that all of the people in this chat channel are not robots.
…ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ jesuisatire bitPickup
•> The Activity Pub algorithm enables this by its' design.
As much as anything else that creates something out of nothing.
Sry but you end up talking nonsense, truth as such never has existed except of in terms of cultural interpretation demanding something to be absolutely true and imposing that supposed truth upon others.
A decentralized setup in any case gives you the chance to discover "the brick wall at the back of the theater".
Centralized setups even deny you that certainty or chance.
---
and yes, I'm a bot too.