this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
26 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37705 readers
259 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 50 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Hello, I have downvoted your post!

Reasons include:

  • stupid fucking clickbait title
  • sharing information that was otherwise already obvious to everyone for the past 2 years
  • ~~quoting elon musk~~ they're actually denigrating elon and I can't read lol
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What article did you read, seeing as there's nothing from Musk in there?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Specifically "Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity" which contains a hyperlink leading to an independent article titled "Elon Musk says AI one of the ‘biggest threats’ to humanity", and is just as much unholy brainrot as one might expect.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

“Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity”

The full quote is "UNLIKE self-serving warnings from Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity". In other words, they're actively denigrating Musk and Altman, and you've taken the quote entirely out of context, in direct opposite to the original meaning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How are those things self-serving?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

The warnings are self-serving, not the AI

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Can't argue with that, I was ADHD skimming. I will now curl up in ball in the corner and die of embarassment and cringe :(

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If it helps, I agreed with your 1st 2 points. You may die with your dignity half intact.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The title is not mine and the paper the article is responding to was published last month, not two years ago as you claim. The only mention of Musk in the entire article is in this one sentence:

Unlike self-serving warnings from Open AI CEO Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity, Google’s research focuses on real harm that generative AI is currently causing and could get worse in the future.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

~~Did you check the hyperlink? Because it is [email protected] levels of stupid.~~ I can't read

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not sure if you're aware so I'll mention it anyway, but as far as I know, downvotes in Beehaw communities don't federate to Beehaw (as in aren't applied here - you might see them on your instance though, not really sure). That being said, your comment does, so you've made a "pseudo-downvote" anyway.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

The mechanism for how it works is that as a remote instance sends in it's downvote count, Beehaw immediately drops the message without modifying the database. Part of this exchange is an expected response of the total updated downvotes. However, Beehaw sends back "0" and the remote instance knows it can't be zero, so it treats it's local count with higher validity.

Essentially, this all ends up meaning that what ssm will see is the total of all downvotes from users on their own instance, and nothing else. This might be just their own downvote, especially being on a smaller instance. But I've seen lemmy.world users be confused about it bc the count they see is say, -5. Have been told my instance obviously has them enabled 😅

Remote instances don't communicate their vote tally's with each other for a third instance's post.