No, AI did exactly what it does: predict which words were most likely to appear next to each other given a specific context/prompt.

The humans involved aren’t “fucking up” either because this is all intentional. They know the evidence is fabricated, they just don’t care because it provides them an excuse to indulge their biases.

Yeah, this is a very real phenomenon and it’s difficult to do anything about it sometimes. People develope an internal profile of you based on their perceptions, and anything they say about you is based on THAT, not reality. It’s even more difficult when it’s somebody close to you who’s internalized that profile so much it’s become part of who they identify as. You’ll see this with the parents of trans kids where the parent has internalized some aspect of their child and it’s become part of their identity. “I’m the father of three sons” kind of thing. Then one of the kids comes out as female and the parent has a really difficult time with it because they identified themselves as the parent of three male children and that’s turned out to be incorrect, they’re the parent of two boys and one girl and they need to change how they identify themselves in addition to how they identify their daughter. Some parents have a really REALLY hard time of it (they still gotta do it though if they don’t want to be a shitty person)

Related to this, there’s a Google translate button at the top that reads, in Turkish, “translate to Turkish”

Which could be evidence that the screenshot comes from somebody who speaks Turkish, which increases the chances that the person receiving the email is in Turkey.

That doesn’t answer your question, but it suggests that Bluesky may only be honoring requests regarding accounts they believe are subject to the local laws.

Two very important points:

• This is proof of nothing
• I personally will continue to use Mastodon instead of Bluesky

There are a lot of good answers already but I want to add that this changes the situation for any Hispanic people swept up by ICE. If officials feel like they can connect a person to the cartels in any way whatsoever, that individual can now be accused of being a terrorist. This changes the legal process they face, and that’s not good news for them. It’ll be easier to send the person to Gitmo. It’ll be harder to fight for that person’s freedom. They’ll likely be tortured, and anything they say can be used as pretense for further aggression by the Trump administration, both domestically and foreign.

My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.

Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.

But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.

Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less

Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.

anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid

That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.

Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.

I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.

In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.

Some virus

Iirc the increase in pandemics has been an expected result of global warming.

For my money, there are three existential threats to the human species. You’ve already listed two: global warming and nuclear war. IMO the third is microplastics (although PFAS could be combined with microplastics to make a category I think we could reasonably call “forever chemicals”)

same way an LLM is able to produce coherent and convincing sentences by statistically determining what word is likely to follow another

To me this implies that the navigation AI is going to hallucinate parts of its model of the world, because it’s basing that model on what’s statically the most likely to be there as opposed to what’s actually there. What could go wrong?

Wish instead of learning bullshit math, I was taught how to repair stuff around my house that I use everyday do things that frequently use the Pythagorean theorem

FTFY

Honestly though, you don’t know what you don’t know, right? So nbd. But yeah, home improvement goes a lot smoother when you know your basic geometry math. So genuinely, I wish you were taught both.

Ah yes, Hanlon’s razor. Genuinely a great one to keep in mind at all times, along with it’s corollary Clarke’s law: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”

But in this particular case I think we need the much less frequently cited version by Douglas Hubbard: “Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.”

Radicals ruin everything.

IIRC two states and several major cities have also successfully implemented rank choice, and in every case it’s been because of Democrats.

As more and more local governments make the change, it’ll become more popular and gain more support on the national level.

The problem is that any third party that manages to eventually displace a member of the duopoly immediately replaces that party in the new duopoly.

Because the duopoly is a result of First Past the Post (FPTP) voting. As long as we use FPTP the duopoly will persist, just with different parties filling the two roles.

Anything short of switching away from FPTP for some form of Rank Choice is going to be a band-aid, mere temporary relief, and not even a very good one.

Which was always the intent, more or less. It was just kind of a tradition amongst audio engineers to use it once in every film. It had nothing to do with the studios.

We need additional regulation about profit margins and executive compensation, or something along those lines, to prevent cost increases from being passed on to the consumer when it could just as easily come out of the profit margin or executive compensation.

It’s a good joke, right?

The only alternative is to use the tools we have: let the free market work, but not at the expense of the employees. This means, yes, wage increase will be passed into the customer, who will reduce how much they use the service (decrease demand), which will either drive down supply to justify higher prices or drive down prices to increase demand again. Either option creates opportunities for competitors to enter the market which also drives down prices.

All that said, let me be clear: I prefer option A over option B, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

“Free speech absolutism (but not if you link to my competitor)” isn’t free speech absolutism. It’s just another hypocrisy to throw on the pile.

Well I know they forced some subreddits go back to SFW if it was obvious the NSFW was just to protest. Maybe that’s the case for the subreddit you’re looking at?

I think the critical difference is “Meta pushes for changes” vs “Meta pushes for changes with the support of thousands/millions of users”.

If Meta convinces Thread users that a certain change is good for them, it’s going to be that much harder for the people developing ActivityPub to push back on those changes. And even if the developers succeed, Meta can just use that to say “fine, we’ll fork off and make our own ActivityPub with data collection and advertisements” and if enough instances in the Fediverse are reliant one Threads for engagement they may just switch to the Meta version of ActivityPub, taking a chunk of our community with them.

And maybe that’s alright for some folks, but a lot of us don’t want any of that to happen, even potentially. I think it’s pretty unethical to deliver people into the maw of the beast like that, so to speak.

You’re 100% correct, but don’t think that’s enough for Meta. It’s inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it’s market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.