@dessalines@lemmy.ml being as sharp as always, thank you for sharing this! I somehow missed that essay in the past, and recently even had a discussion where I argued in favor of signal. His overview makes some great points that shouldn’t be dismissed offhandedly. The important point is to not make the mistake of shunning signal in favor of an even less secure alternative. Also the user’s threat model should be taken into account. Those who aren’t anticapitalists (yet) might need to worry less about the concerns.

Hmm, this is a topic that has been debated for years, I guess instead of writing my own summaries, it’s great to link you to some resources, outlining why modern AI (“LLM”/“GPT”) is controversial:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model#Safety
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model#Societal_concerns
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#Limitations
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slop

Note that some issues apply only given certain output (e.g. hallucinations), some depend on the usage (the decision to generate and publicize AI slop is made by human operators), whereas some issues are always present (e.g. huge environmental impact).

Regarding the there being a difference between good and bad AI or not: Some people argue that it’s always bad, some are bit more nuanced, some are competely blind/ignorant to the problem. Only those in the middle camp would necessarily see a difference.

Short answer: The automobile lobby prevents it.

I can’t speak for myself, but I’ve seen some children/young teenagers with ADHD being already too focused on what’s next. Or they go to the toilet with a handheld gaming console or smartphone to begin with, and never diverted their attention except for the bare minimum required when going to the toilet.

I don’t use such terms, but I’ll try a possible explanation: There is indeed a certain tendency. Articles are mostly written by speakers of that language. For example English articles by English-spreading editors tend to be influenced by western ideology. If you’d look at, I dunno, Russian Wikipedia, I’d assume it’s a similar situation.

It’s known that there are indeed paid government agents editing Wikipedia. But even those that are not are influenced by the Zeitgeist, which itself is informed by state propaganda. So we don’t need to assume intentional malice.

Ideally, people complaining about Wikipedia would have the time and skill to improve it. But that’s easier said than done.

It’s great until you unmute it