• 0 Posts
  • 65 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 27th, 2023

help-circle

  • I wanna add to what other users already answered that this problem is not created by federation, only exacerbated.

    If I’m mod of a community and I ban your Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world account, I cannot stop you from creating, e.g. Lost_My_M1nd@lemmy.world and coming back. Most servers have some barriers against spam account creation in place, but I’d wager you could easily create a handful of accounts on a server until they start to grip.

    Even completely centralized platforms such as Twitter and Reddit are the same. You can easily ban/block evade a couple times per timeframe.




  • For sure, that’s why my main accusation is them directing traffic to their bad article (could even be an attempt at getting search engines to associate their article with “android games 2024”) and not the AI stuff. I just started with the AI accusation because it was funny to me when OP and you already talked about AI (in games).

    AI or not, the post is poorly written and has little to no informative content.

    I do agree with you though, some people through around AI accusations way too quickly. Especially when they spot mistakes. LLMs are very good at NOT making grammatical or syntactical mistakes in English. If anything, those mistakes are often a sign of authenticity.


  • What games use AI to enrich the user experience? Highly doubting that one.

    Even more so, I highly suspect OP is written with anything but AI. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt that they wrote it by hand, it’s very suspicious that their article on mobile games in 2024 has a url that states they’re about 2021 and mentions mostly games from back then. Using the Wayback Machine (I would never give them a click) reveals that it’s (mostly) the same article over all those years with the year in the title updated and some layout changes to fit the layout of the website.

    While I cannot say with near certainty that OP is written by AI, I do feel confident saying that this post exists solely to direct traffic to that shitty article.





  • From what I remember and what a quick search on the internet confirmed, B didn’t actually deny her anything. He actually went out of his way to do as much good for her as he could. He claims to have replied “Language.” because he knew other people at NASA with more say on her job would find her, which would get her into trouble (and they did find her even before his first Tweet).








  • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.detoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldAutomation
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    So is the example with the dogs/wolves and the example in the OP.

    As to how hard to resolve, the dog/wolves one might be quite difficult, but for the example in the OP, it wouldn’t be hard to feed in all images (during training) with randomly chosen backgrounds to remove the model’s ability to draw any conclusions based on background.

    However this would probably unearth the next issue. The one where the human graders, who were probably used to create the original training dataset, have their own biases based on race, gender, appearance, etc. This doesn’t even necessarily mean that they were racist/sexist/etc, just that they struggle to detect certain emotions in certain groups of people. The model would then replicate those issues.




  • I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.

    Which brings me back to the last point in my comment.

    I also hope I’m right. The two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result. Also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.

    As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.

    Edit: Formatting