I personally stay away from AI due to the many issues AI brings.

I am a fan of people fighting big companies.

I have had an influx of these game decomps on my Instagram recently.

I am not trying to be pedantic, but Instagram is “AI.” It was toxic AI before LLMs were a popular thing. Participating in their algorithm is basically everything dystopian about the world of machine learning, concentrated in one service. And using it helps Meta perpetuate it more than using any LLM does.

Again, I don’t mean to be hostile; maybe you use it sparingly in some cleaner way, and I’m not saying everything on Instagram is bad; quite the contrary.

But I just want to make what Instagram runs it crystal clear.

Well… Our points of view are so far apart, I don’t even know where to begin to reconcile them.

Sourcing, information hygiene, proof, and science are irrefutably central to the way I wish to interact with the world. It should be the bedrock of any healthy online community structure, IMO.

Places where that’s not enforced are place people just echo what they want to hear, in my experience. Whether its true or not is secondary, as apparently information hygiene is too “heirarchal” and constricting.

I don’t want that. I don’t want anything to do with the Fediverse if that’s what it becomes, and it sure feels like many users want that.

I mean, you shouldn’t. “XiJinpingStanAccount” is a glorious handle. I salute you, comrade.

One I’ve had, that’s adjacent, is allowing communities to form “hierarchies.”

So niches could be under /c/technology, individual video games or genres could be under /c/gaming, sports, you name it. It would all require consent from the lower and upper parts of the chain.

One benefit would be “pooling” housekeeping moderation. e.g. if a troll harassed you on a niche community, one from a higher one could moderate it quicker. Or if /c/technology was overwhelmed at a point in time, smaller communities mods could step in to housekeep comments in /c/technology, with the granularity of all this being configurable.

I bring this up because I think it helps the issue of moderators not being responsive enough to your comments. And those passionate enough to run some niche community well enough to fit in a hierarchy would earn the power to moderate comments under topics they’d frequently post to anyway. But it has a lot of other benefits, like helping with discoverability of smaller communities without an algo.

Let’s perform a thought experiment.

I disagree with YOUR post. This one, right here, and I really try to politely articulate my point as to why.

You don’t like it, so you delete it. You delete any post with similar sentiment.

…Is that fair?

If you response is “well, I wouldnt do that,” think about it. That’s the power you’re asking every user on Lemmy user to be responsible with. Do you trust every user to that extent?

deleted by creator

Eh. I still (respectfully) disagree.

I think that’s newsworthy; but it should have linked the dev announcement, or GitHub thread, or wherever the information was sourced from.

If /c/technology won’t allow direct posts from developers, that is indeed a problem for /c/technology, as that’s a first party source for topical news.

But to make my position clear:

• If that poster was intended to post without a source, that should be against the rules. It’s how I would moderate /c/technology.

• There are other communities to post that to.

• Hence, I don’t agree that this issue should be generalized. Communities need to straighten out sourcing rules to be more practical, especially to allow topical first party sources, but I don’t think they should loosen sourcing rules.

If Lemmy/Piefed has discoverability issues for small communities or an under moderation issues, I think those are structural, and we should change how the site works to address them.

I respectfully disagree.

If you want a place to discuss opinions, that’s what comments sections are for. Or communities dedicated to discussion.

But news communities are generally rooted in facts. For current news, that means sourced, methodological journalism. Discussion stems from facts

I can make a website right now and call it “The Daily Pragmatist” or some shit and people won’t bat an eye.

This is one of the worst issues plaguing Lemmy, IMO. People post stuff from outright tabloids, random Tweet screenshots, and those kind of websites Wikipedia will outright reject as a source. This is a huge problem, but it means that communities should be more rigorous about information hygiene, TBH. They need to be stricter about what is allowed as source.

Reality also is that many reach conclusions based on titles alone anyhow.

I hate this too. But to fight it, I think Lemmy needs to steal the “community correction” thing Twitter does, so people would see community consensus right below the headline.

And I am very serious about this. I will die on this hill.

I’m not saying more discussion spaces shouldn’t exist, that’s great; but news communities should be for news.

Honestly… I have gotten close to deleting my Lemmy account and leaving, because the information hygiene is getting as bad as Reddit here. I did not come to Lemmy to engage in conspiracies and misinformation.

And the community feeling the opposite is not making me feel any better. I’ve seen other Reddit clones do down like this.

Meta has funded all sorts of open source infrastructure, for a long time. If you want to avoid their funded contributions… TBH, I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

Indeed. But they did get one freak tropical cyclone, in 2004!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Catarina

It’s the only recorded one in history, though. And I think they still do get some tropical-feeling weather in Brazil.

It’s good to have this documented, thanks. It’s one thing for everyone to “know” they’re Tankies, it’s another to have compiled evidence and A/B examples like this to point to.

Washington worried about political parties overpowering the checks before he was even president, and worried until his deathbed. This was taught in school, IIRC.

That I would not even try to predict. I don’t know how far this bubble burst will go.

deleted by creator

they have their own ai

They don’t make it:

https://proton.me/blog/lumo-ai

Lumo is based upon open-source language models and operates from Proton’s European datacenters. This gives you much greater transparency into the way Lumo works than any other major AI assistant. Unlike Apple Intelligence and others, Lumo is not a partnership with OpenAI or other American or Chinese AI companies, and your queries are never sent to any third parties. Our research and development will remain focused on open models, which we will continuously improve and augment.

Per discussions online, it seems to be a mix of small Mistral and Olmo models, and GLM for the max tier.

This’d be like arguing a company hosting database software to serve a product is a “database software company.” They are a hosting some tool made by someone else, with a sticker.

they also have the most ridiculous brand fans.

Perhaps. I’m a bit scared of how much critical mass they have, TBH. But this does not make them an AI company.

It’s not that simple, as:

• Other companies/institutions have heavy investments in OpenAI.

• Other companies’ expected long-term revenue depends on OpenAI.

• They are the “face” of LLMs to finance world. If they tank, the illusion shatters, and investments pulls out of “AI” everywhere.

I agree that Google, Meta, the companies will be fine, as you said. Nvidia/AMD will be fine. Even XAI will be fine. The physical companies and their business aren’t going anywhere.

But their stocks will drop precipitously, and drag others into the rut with them like a black hole.

But that paragraph links to this as a reference: https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations

In that link, it’s clear “abusive users” means users trying to repeatedly bring up prohibited topics. Anthropic is many bad things, but not insane; they know their models can’t be “abused” themselves, they can be abused as a tool.

It is: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117412435306815143

https://www.axios.com/2026/10/09/trump-putin-diesel-agreement-ukraine-war

OP should post a link with such a screenshot, though. Basic information hygiene.

Well, the actual post is talking about users, not “hurting the model’s feelings” like the header seemingly implies.

I’m not a Claude apologist or anything, but this is a misleading post, IMO.

Yeah.

I don’t like Anthropic’s long term prospects, but OpenAI is specifically in trouble, near term.

Their whole premise was becoming a Facebook-style “where else are you gonna go?” captured market on the consumer side, and that is clearly not happening. They wanted an enterprise monopoly, and those business customers are looking elsewhere.

Their ass is cooked.