rysiek

@Marsupial you might want to read up on Luddites. Here's a good place to start:
https://www.techwontsave.us/episode/187_the_real_history_of_the_luddites_w_brian_merchant

@MayonnaiseArch

@sarmale feels like FFDN is relevant here:
https://www.ffdn.org/en/

@Mysteriarch @fer0n fool me once, shame on you; but go right ahead and fool me twice or thrice, why not!

@maxprime amazing, thank you for sharing!

@nayminlwin

@DolphinMath correct. But Vaultwarden is not the official thing. Not saying it's bad, just something to keep in mind.

@xenspidey @DolphinMath one note though, BitWarden requires MSSQL (you read that right, Microsoft SQL Server).

@Natanael you seem to continue to focus on PDSes even though I explicitly said it doesn't matter which PDS you're on, the secondary centralization (and thus control) happens in the "reach" layer, outside of what PDSes do in ATproto.

In other words, changing a PDS gives you way, way less agency in BS, compared to agency you get with changing an instance on Fedi.

BS is designed to make that secondary centralization happen, and to be where the real power in the system is.

@Natanael

> The Mastodon fediverse have stronger network effects because big servers can enforce policies on other servers to stay federated. It’s complicated for users to move servers.

Well, I wrote about this as well, so I think I might not be missing these details:
https://rys.io/en/168.html

@Natanael enshittification is about power, and ATproto is designed to look decentralized but enable secondary centralization where it matters for power dynamics in the network, in a way that the Fediverse very much doesn't:
https://rys.io/en/167.html

(shameless plug, I wrote that, but it dives somewhat deep into the "why" of what I said above)

tl;dr it doesn't matter which PDS you use if everyone is still beholden to the same entity that controls the "reach" layer in BS.

@SkepticalButOpenMinded

@Flax_vert or "ex-Twitter"

@Floon

@lloram239 that's really akin to claiming that a mannequin is a human being because it really really looks alike.

The "predictions about the world" you refer to here are instead predictions about the text. They are not based on a model of the world, they are based on loads and loads of text the model was trained on.

I don't have to prove ChatGPT is not intelligent. That would be proving a negative. The burden of proof is on those claiming that it is intelligent.

@lloram239 ah, so you're down to throwing epithets like "idiotic" around. Clearly a mark of thoughtful and well-reasoned argument.

> Predictions about the world are probabilistic by nature, since the future hasn’t happened yet.

Thing is: GPT doesn't make predictions about the world, it makes predictions about what the next word, phrase, sentence should be in a text, based on the prompt and the corpus it got "trained" on.