Actually, it does sound more neutral to my ear, but I don’t know why considering it’s from the damn breakup of Yugoslavia, which ended with a genocide.

“Splintering” sounds kinda negative, which bothers me. It’s a good thing if there’s less in the way of walled garden monopolies.

What are the chances of this actually happening, Europeans? GDPR did, so it doesn’t seem impossible, but this is a lot more targeted at one specific company.

There’s also the fact he’s now close the the new American strongman, and they don’t want to piss off America.

Yeah. The EU endorsing and preferentially using OSS is a good concept, but there should be way less specifics in there.

Modern industrial economies are really complicated. I like trains. To make trains, you need parts, labour, equipment and power. They themselves need to be made, which uses parts, labour, equipment and power, and meanwhile you have competing uses of all those things for making, I dunno, printing presses, or for completely different things like farming or art curating. If you drew it all out as a diagram it would get super interconnected super fast.

Meanwhile, even a simple binary choice like which of two lots a rehab center should go on can be very politically complicated. Anarchists like to handwave it away with “we’ll figure it out together”, and I really don’t find that convincing.

Markets offer a system that’s proven to work insofar as if you need to buy a train or a hair clip or lunch someone’s always selling it. How do you guarantee that, or something similar?

Not that I’m aware of. AFAIK nobody collects hard long-term data right now, and I’m actually working actively on a system to do it.

Just based on me peaking at current federation stats every once in a while, .world has grown relative to the niche but early-arriving .ml/heaxbear/lemmygrad sphere, which makes me think it’s growing overall.

Boo!

Whatever, this is far from the end of the story, and Lemmy has nothing but time. The bigger they are, the harder they fall in the end.

Hmm, they managed to get on techcrunch. Impressive. So many little fediverse projects just don’t.

Loops is not yet open sourced, nor has it completed its integration with ActivityPub, the protocol that powers Mastodon, Pixelfed, PeerTube, and other federated apps.

Ah, it’s a startup with a hypeman budget that might federate, that’s why.

Edit: Although it’s by the Pixelfed guy and run by donation?

I’m having a bit of trouble following that. Are you anti-socialism and complaining that it’s just stealing, or pro-socialism and asking me what details I’m missing?

No, vapourware. If their thing worked but also had remote prisons this would be a totally different (and ethically abstract) conversation, so that’s not the important detail.

In practice, their thing didn’t work, and still ran on market-style money transactions, albeit with multiple currencies and a lot of random red tape. And then a huge unofficial market cropped up as well to close the gaps from it not working.

A bigger market share (or just market size if it’s something new-fangled) at the expense of current profit, because that can turn into future profits. See most modern tech companies, which make a loss but still have value. For example, Uber just made a profit for the first time, and since they’re everywhere that’s a great position for a shareholder. People bought in in the past in hopes that this would eventually happen.

OP is a little off, BTW. US law - and it’s probably the same elsewhere - says that the C-suite has to work in the interests of shareholders, who they represent as fiduciaries. It’s just that there’s only a few things a million APPL shareholders have in common, so in practice that interest is value and dividends. In a privately-owned company other things might factor in, for better or for worse.

IANAL

Yeah, but I’ve yet to see a detailed alternate proposal. When people talk about anarchism it gets really handwavy really fast, and the other kind of socialism has history of being vapourware.

TBF small businesses do this too on average. There’s some that don’t, but then there’s also some that straight up do crime, usually against employees.

To solve this, you either want a well-regulated market, or no market (however that would work).

Or maybe just refuses to fathom that other people could not want to talk to him. If he has a psych file I’m sure it’s darkly fascinating.

Yeah, but some people are more willing to move onto a smaller platform. Like us. In practice, as long as more than one person becomes willing per person who makes the change, it works out to compounding percentage growth, which is good because the internet itself would never have taken off otherwise (or cities and railways, for that matter).

You guys 'member agar.com? /s

I mean, that’s what it would have to be, right? OP probably thinks it’s impossible because GAI is impossible. I think it’s likely impossible because there’s no moral system that’s both totally specific and which we could all agree on, even roughly.

Either way, a good guy detector is far off at the very least, and we’re going to have to struggle for the cause of good, whatever that may be, the old fashioned political way.

but I feel there will never be a technology that can do that.

That’s my best guess too, but someone could plausibly argue otherwise. I just went with something undisputable that still illustrates the main point.

Shocking. /s

No current technology can distinguish between good guys and bad guys. There’s like a pervasive ideological discomfort with that basic fact. You see it again and again on every regulation debate.

that you need to get conspiracy theorists to sit down and do the treatment. With their general level of paranoia around a) tech, b) science, and c) manipulation, that not likely to happen.

You overestimate how hard it is to get a conspiracy theorist to click on something. I don’t know, it seems promising to me. I more worry that it can be used to sell things more nefarious than “climate change is real”.

you need a level of “AI” that isn’t going to start hallucinating and instead enforce the subjects’ conspiracy beliefs. Despite techbros’ hype of the technology, I’m not convinced we’re anywhere close.

They used a purpose-finetuned GPT-4 model for this study, and it didn’t go off script in that way once. I bet you could make it if you really tried, but if you’re doing adversarial prompting then you’re not the target for this thing anyway.