> A lot of the dogpiling is from people who come out and say some dumb shit and demand respect. When they get ridicule for their ridiculous take, they play the victim.
Literally victim blaming.
---
If you say something outrageous in the 'public square' and you get mocked for it by the public, how are you a victim?
I don't know why that would happen to someone trying to make a paint.NET clone, but that's also certainly not the type of post the person you replied to was talking about.
> I don't know why that would happen to someone trying to make a paint.NET clone, but that's also certainly not the type of post the person you replied to was talking about
You’re not seeing it. Everyone who dogpiled the Paint.NET on Wine guy also thought they were doing legitimate mocking of a guy who said the wrong thing in a public square. The people who didn’t like AI thought it was valid to create a harassment campaign against him for using AI as part of his process. The people who thought all things Microsoft must be opposed thought it was valid to create a harassment campaign for making a Microsoft product work in more places.
Everyone in each of these campaigns thought their crusade was valid and the victim brought it upon themself. That you can see it being invalid in some cases is getting close to realizing why it’s a problem. Not everyone agrees on what’s right or wrong, but these public shaming campaigns serve to try to force everyone who disagrees out of the platform to strengthen the echo chamber.
You’re already noticing that you’re outside of the acceptable echo chamber thoughts because you don’t understand why the Paint.NET project would attract harassment. If you supported that guy and your post got traction, you too could get dogpiled. Do you think you would have said anything “outrageous” in the public square by questioning why anyone would criticize that guy?
I don't think people responding independently to something you post online is harassment.
Do you?
For example, if 500+ people replied to my comment here with why I'm wrong, I don't see how I'm some victim. People have their right to voice their opinions. I'd just ignore replies to that comment when I'm tired of engaging.
> I don't think people responding independently to something you post online is harassment.
> Do you?
Being pedantic about the word to describe it isn't useful.
I don't care what word you use to describe the behavior. The behavior is common, it makes the site less pleasant, it drives away users I want to follow, and it's bad enough that Blue Sky is taking official steps to counter it.
Call it whatever you want, I don't care. Doesn't change anything about the issue.
> If you say something outrageous in the 'public square' and you get mocked for it by the public, how are you a victim?
Consider two ways of responding to someone saying something you don't like.
1) You post a reasoned critique of what they said. People who agree with you repost your critique so that a lot of people read it. Your purpose and effect is to convince people that they're wrong rather than punish them for disagreeing with you.
2) You accuse the other person of being an evil villain/pedo/nazi/terrorist. No reasoning is provided because their guilt is self-evident from the fact that you're pointing at them in an accusatory manner while wearing your tribe's official colors. The others are expected to not only do the same but also cut ties with them and try to have them harassed/fired/arrested/assaulted. Anyone who tries to rise to their defense is subjected to the same treatment.
The second one is just bullies using tribal loyalty as a pretext to rationalize their vacuous hostility.
In 99.99% of the cases the accusation is leveled, they're not, and in the remaining ~0% of cases it's still better to refute their argument than to call them names.
On Bluesky even the most centrist, moderate views are often dogpiled as "something outrageous". I got dragged into a flame war because I posted something to the effect of "I dont think communism would magically solve all our current problems"
Consider the amount of debt they have piled up. If you don't believe your company can lice up to said debt or the current valuation, and if you do believe fear can lead to government capture that would protect your company from said liabilities, fiduciary liability would incentivize you to push the extinction risk narrative.
The intent of your comment is unclear to me, so I will ask you to clarify. And I will avoid any attempt at sarcasm from now on.
Great grandparent claimed (or at least strongly implied) that the labs have been saying that their creations might end the human race because the labs expect that saying such things will attract investment in the labs or purchases of their creations. I disputed that claim (using sarcasm).
Do you agree with me or disagree with me? (I honestly cannot tell.)
Would you say that the meme you quoted is sarcasm?
Do you believe that the meme you quoted has attracted investors or buyers?
I did read your comment correctly as a sarcastic way to make the point that, "no, potentially wiping out the human race is not a way to attract investors". I disagree.
I referenced the meme in order to show that yes, the zeitgeist does believe that the investor-class will destroy civilization for short-term profit.
And yes, I believe at least a subset of investors are short-sighted and willing to inflict immense harm for profit, and that claiming the ability to cause incalculable damage is a deliberate attempt to appeal to such people.
I believe the LLM-mania is in no small part driven by an ultimately fraudulent implicit pitch to investors that OpenAI etc will eventually Install Planetary Overlords, and that claiming "we could wipe out the human race" serves as marketing in furtherance of that implication.
So… follow out your own line of thinking. Altman and Dario and whoever is at Google are all saying the same thing, and are all required to make moves better for business…
Scaring tue gov into regulation - is good for business.
Another mark in the “they clearly want regulatory capture” column.
First we should ask why "all the other people who are not CEOs" are talking about this?
Maybe it's because said CEOs put it on the agenda for everyone to talk about.
This is silly. AI CEOs have s lot of visibility, but AI and alignment researchers not affiliated with big corps in any way have been saying this for 20+ years and are finally being listened to. Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence was published in 2014.
Oh like who the media that loves scary things? The “effective altruists” (fucking lol) that are one degree away at most from working for big tech?
My in laws don’t have a microwave because they think it nukes food… one of them mentioned rouge AIs attacking a site called huggingface by name to me… this shit is not organic.
If their activities materially increase the probability of human extinction and this poses a risk of potential loss to shareholders then they must disclose it.
If their activities materially increase the probability of human extinction, is there any reason that they should not be treated as invading aliens, or doomsday apocalypse-cult terrorists?
Like, why on Earth would anyone tolerate someone in the same train car playing with a grenade?
I dunno, we share an earth with North Korea who has nukes... which perfectly fits your "same train car playing with a grenade" analogy, but we don't do anything about it.
Are you gonna continue to tolerate it? Or are you gonna stop them from playing with grenades in this train car we call earth?
In my opinion, no; but they are now getting in bed (Metaphorically) with people who see their software as potential means to "beat China" or "beat Iran" and together they are weaving a very tangled Pandora's box of worms
The "increases the risk of extinction" bit is 100% marketing BS that they're spewing to pump up their stock prices and encourage the government to shutout foreign competition (who would use this ability against the USA, of course ).
A lot of my friends will say "Well, the google AI says this" so they're using it, and maybe they don't trust the answers, but I think the thing is that they're using it.
"It's AI but anyway", seems to be a way to use it, but not promote that your using it?
There's a significant amount of people in my friend group who don't like "AI", but everyone seems to use what google's doing, even if they add the "the AI said this" disclaimer to it.
Even the people who don't like 'AI', will still reference the LLM output, which seems like they're just slow to accept it, I guess.
there's a difference between reading the ai generated summary, almost certainly cached for many questions just like trad search results, and actually clicking and interacting with the Ai, where the suggested billions people having gemini sessions. Google's own reported token volume would not indicate billions of people are chatting with gemini
Just want to add that myself to the list of people who can't imagine calling 911 for a non-emergency. Never in my life have I heard anyone assume it's for that purpose.
I had been waiting to see when Google and Apple maps will make this change. I believe both now do this "Gulf of Mexico -> America" rename, however I found that Comaps (which I learned about from someone on HN, shoutout to whoever that was) never did. I'm not sure how they decide on names, but it seems better than leaving it up to whatever the POTUS feels like at the moment.
If Trump renamed the state of NY to New Trumpland, would Google and Apple go along with it? Seems like they would. It's just embarrassing.
In Google Maps app (non-American version) it is already visible as “Lake Ontario (Lake America)”. Also Mapy.com has dual names.
Canadian-American border cuts the lake so dual name is obvious as Canada doesn’t have any intention to rename it.
Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America) is the same situation. USA is the only country who changed the name so…
The other situation could be with cities or counties that are inside US territory.
Or take an example with Dept of War. Nobody abroad isn’t using Dept of Defense in their texts of anymore… (Btw Dept of War was since 1789 til 1949 then renamed to Dept of Defense.)
Different situation is with X. As the X is confusing for a lot of people, Twitter is added after slash to explain the situation (X/Twitter).
Literally victim blaming.
---
If you say something outrageous in the 'public square' and you get mocked for it by the public, how are you a victim?
I don't know why that would happen to someone trying to make a paint.NET clone, but that's also certainly not the type of post the person you replied to was talking about.
reply