Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

SuspiciousCarrot78

@ SuspiciousCarrot78 @aussie.zone

Posts
20
Comments
340
Joined
4 mo. ago

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • What social capital is being built by waiting over an active participation requirement?

    Display of patience and good will, as I said.

    If you can't wait 30 days AND engage in actual discussion BEFORE posting your amazing project, that's a clear breach of the unspoken social contract.

    Again - I'm saying these things are cumulative.

    30 days + posts + 10%.

    Any one or the other can be gamed.

    Sign up for 30 days, do nothing, post ad = you technically waited 30 days.

    Posts = "sounds great!", "I love Syncthing!", "Have you tried Jellyfin?" (or better LLM crafted variants) and THEN hit with ad = you technically engaged with the community.

    10% = 9 fillers, 1 ad = you technically met the 10% rule.

    How

    See above

    Low effort comments would just be considered spam in the first place, so how can it be gamed?

    "Low effort" is doing some work there. How are you going to define it?

    Its all human (me) reviewed, through a posted process that is transparent and simple to follow. Whats the difference?

    That's exactly my point. A+B+C = less decision pain for you, less gray area for posters. So long as both sides are clear on what A+B+C constitute.

    The issue with rule 3 was a completely subjective interpretation of what was selfhosting as determined by that mod, which then made the community believe there were hit and run posts happening, and the posters believe this to be a hostile community (it was).

    Correct. And it stifled discussion. We're not disagreeing here.

    Nothing is being automated, I review every report. The tools aren't there imo to automate much of anything successfully.

    Still not disagreeing.

    I'm not saying no here, to be clear, I'm asking what this actually adds because I'm not seeing it.

    Multiplicity of signals, transparency and clear expectations.

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • Maybe. So let me steelman what I think you're saying.

    It seems like you're making a case for some kind of loop - AI tag means you can't complain about AI tagged posts, and if you do, your post gets removed.

    Have I represented your position fairly?

    My counter point is - if the hostility already exists without a tag, that confirms the tag isn't a cultural fix.

    If complaints about AI use become off-topic and get removed, you haven't improved the community's relationship with AI content, you've just suppressed the feedback loop.

    Is that really the right direction, given the reality of AI assistance in coding?

    The hostility doesn't go away. It goes underground, or people leave anyway.

    Moderating away dissent isn't community health, it's just quieter dissent.

    The community reacting negatively to AI content is the signal. A tag that makes that signal removable isn't a solution, it's a lid on a pot.

    I'm not calling for some grand destigmatization of slop, I'm calling for nuance and education.

    Which ultimately is beyond the scope of a mod...but you're the one wearing the cape. What sort of house do you want to run?

    Let's at least not do something that propagates the knee jerk "fuckAI and fuck you" Lemmy is famous for.

    It's a hard problem, to be sure. Maybe your AI tag is a fair enough step for now.

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • We might be talking past each other here or actually agreeing.

    But yes, this belongs in a separate [META] thread. It's a discussion that needs to be had IMHO.

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • Yes, that's what I'm saying. So an AI tag at best does nothing and at worst buries potential useful projects.

  • [META] No man is an island

    Jump

  • I'm confused by your confusion. I can try restating it another way if you can tell me what isn't clicking.

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • Waiting is the point. People who are here to post and run will neither have the patience, nor the good will, to wait 30 full days before accumulating the social capital to blab about their project.

    I'm not proposing "bot signs up, waits 30 days, then posts". That's a known escape velocity. 30 days by itself isn't the solution because it can be gamed (esp without karma).

    OTOH, everything proposed so far can also be gamed.

    I'm merely suggesting a human mod reviewable method, that is also transparent and simple to follow for users.

    If you can't automate this, you either need hard rules (which will stifle convos - which was part of the issue with rule 3) OR you need a defensible rubric.

    You can choose which, but there's a constraints based reason why fora keep circling this sort of solution.

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • OK but isn't that also true of non AI projects? Famously, XZ utils?

    I would hate to see this happen

    • [AI TAG] - slop, derision, FOAD
    • [NOT AI] - all good!

    Tagging something ai or not ai is no guarantee of non-malefescence. Due diligence is required in both circumstances.

    It's a bit like those Nigerian prince scam emails of yore. If you can't grok why it's bad, no amount of "this email is probably spam" being appended to the header will save you.

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • On the 30 day rule: I come back to the "what is this space" question.

    Is it a men's shed? Is it free to air TV? Is it Avon knocking on my door?

    What frame of reference are we operating from here?

    If it's a communal space where journeymen share tips and tricks, then "pay your fees" (with 30 days of good faith participation first) seems to guard (historically) against aggressive advertising.

    ICBW and YMMV.

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that would do leaflet drops (junk mail). People would complain. I pointed out that they were essentially spamming people with unsolicited junk. Their retort was "We don't see it as junk; we're informing potential customers".

    Dunno. Pretty sure it was just wasting a lot of paper and generating some ill will. ICBW

    I guess it depends on what this space is. Is it a (virtual) wood worker's get together, where journeymen pool knowledge and help each other out? Or is it something else? Is there a needle to thread here?

    Whatever it is, if we never get another "I made X...here's the problem this solves...curious if anyone else..." AI ghost written "pick me, pick me", I will be very greatful.

  • Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal

    Jump

  • FOSS / FLOSS isn't nec. free (gratis) though. We might end up yak shaving with these definitions. Better to have a singular rule for all?

    I'm thinking of it from both mods side and community side. Obnoxious advertising - FOSS or otherwise - is obnoxious.

    10% rule is a good one. 30 day rule is another good one. Use both?

    IMHO.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • What are the criteria for "best"? If you can define them sufficiently, a self hosted llm, with vision (I'm thinking a Qwen3.6-35B or even a straight Qwen3.4 7B VL) might fit the bill. It's a classification job - LLMs are good at those.

    Does immich have dedupe / quality eval plug ins? They might do the job too.

    You could write something (or get Claude to code you something) but option 1 seems simplest.

  • "The future of AI depends on the moral compass of five people."

    Jump

  • Network effects. Nothing happens in isolation. And (as is already being shown with Qwen) it's not as if the incentive structure doesn't apply to open weight labs. There are no saints in AI - same dynamics everywhere.

    Right now, training a new near frontier llm from scratch is a multi million dollar proposition. Until training costs are 0, that $$$ needs to come from somewhere. Which incentivizes the same behaviours.

    IOW, if you think GLM et al are the good guys to Anthropic and OAI's bad...no...they're just trying to undercut them for market capture.

    That's the cynical read, anyway. ICBW.

  • "The future of AI depends on the moral compass of five people."

    Jump

  • I seem to recall a story about a Roman farmer / ex general, who was voulten-told into being emperor, solved the problem at hand, and went back to farming, no fuss no muss. All in the space of a fortnight.

    As BDE goes, that's the full John Holmes. Hell, that's two dicks worth of BDE.

  • [META] No man is an island

    Jump

  • I hope so too. And I hope it (upstream affects down stream, no man is an island etc) generates some productive conversation.

    To wit: the recent Plex situation.

  • [META] No man is an island

    Jump

  • "'Dropped today" refers to the video btw, not the firing - it's a retrospective video essay.

    Logic stands, but counter-argue it if you like.

    Peace favour your sword.

  • "The future of AI depends on the moral compass of five people."

    Jump

  • Right? No one becomes a billionaire (or trillionaire) with clean hands.

    I don't know what to do about that. I know a lot of people secretly hoping AI leads us to luxury space communism...but...if we're building portals to summon aliens (AGI)...do we trust big corpo with that?

    It's a mess.

    Democracy (3 legged slouching towards Bethlehem) is the worst system...apart from all the others.

  • "The future of AI depends on the moral compass of five people."

    Jump

  • We don't so much slouch as 3-legged race towads Bethlehem.

    That's probably the only thing that's stopped us from dying out (so far) - discoordination.

    5 people seems dangerously coordinated.

    Using AI in any capacity is probably "using the masters tools to dismantle the house".

    I suppose even Che Guevara wore a Rolex though, for what it's worth.

  • "The future of AI depends on the moral compass of five people."

    Jump

  • Oh...i hope you're wrong. I really, really hope you're wrong.

    But the incentive structure sure does seem to reward that.

  • "The future of AI depends on the moral compass of five people."

    Jump

  • 50/50.

    Be nice to Claude and Chat - they'll probably decide which version of the matrix you end up in.