FaceDeer

There’s a pretty big divide between failing to stop something like this and being fine with it. Democracy is hard to preserve sometimes and that sucks. But being fine with it eroding is another matter entirely.

I’m not American so I can’t do anything about the FTC by design. I’m doing volunteer work for political parties in my own country that are helping to insulate and distance us from America instead.

“I got mine so screw everyone else” is a common Republican refrain.

It really sounds like a “Let’s go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over” reaction.

Things will be different. Maybe AI won’t replace humans entirely in this role, but it’s still going to be a major tool in the toolbox.

What about the tariffs on countries that want to see what’s in the Epstein files?

Don’t tell Trump, but our effective tariff rate is actually quite low because the USMCA exempts a huge amount of goods from them. Shh. He probably has no idea that’s in there, even though he’s the guy who negotiated it last time he was in office.

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”

― James D. Nicoll

A perfectly cromulent word.

Reminds me of the 2009 Toyota accelerator pedal incident.

Now we’re “vibe vibing?”

Which is not relevant to the actual use case for AI being discussed. There’s no direct AI involvement in editing articles being proposed here.

I don’t see how this fits into the actual case being discussed here.

The situation currently is that a newbie editor whose article is deleted gets presented with a simple “your article was deleted” message. The proposition is to have an AI flesh that out with a “possibly for the following reasons:” Explanation. How is that worse?

All that stuff about paying less and threatening the worker class is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, its editors and administrators are all unpaid volunteers.

There are lots of non-proprietary AI models out there, some of them comparable in quality to ChatGPT. Wikipedia could run it themselves if they wanted, no “corpo involvement.”

They want to handle lots of prompts.

What about any of this remotely connects to “rewriting history and eliminating freedom of speech?”

That being said, it still wreaks of “CEO Speak.” And trying to find a place to shove AI in.

I don’t see how this is “shoved in.” Wales identified a situation where Wikipedia’s existing non-AI process doesn’t work well and then realized that adding AI assistance could improve it.

“Editors” are not a unified block. I would be fine with it, depending on how it’s used.

The temperature has never gone above zero in Belarus.

Whenever something on my computer tries to tell me I can’t do something with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOzfkErkWDM

There are better cryptocurrency options to Bitcoin now, including stabletokens that are specifically designed for this purpose. Hopefully they go to one of those instead.