Labels don't matter, be happy

It was but a mere example

Fair enough.

It could help, but it’s not a problem that any one solution is the solution. There’s going to be some combination of solutions to actually solve it.

Also reasonable

Not really, I might have a lot of accounts, but it’s still only 1 per instance so it’s not really inflating the numbers. Besides most go by monthly active users for gauging the Threadiverse health which because of my pattern I might not even make up 1 MAU lol

Reasonable again.

I don’t just make them, I do my best to actively contribute to them, like I said I also post “organically sourced” content and not just crossposts for this very reason.

I missed that, if that's whats happening i retract my implication.

Um I’m not sure how that would be a user education error? I’m talking about someone maliciously making an imposter account and posting heinous crap “in their name” But there is currently no technical solution on the Threadiverse afaik for it

I think imposter account is a misnomer, two accounts with the same name on different instances are distinct entities afaik,

like mike@gmail.com isn't the same as mike@outlook.com.

if you look at a post and it's written by "mike" and you don't look at the instance it's from you're only getting half of the information you need.

Solutions for this type of problem exist already (PGP keys etc), they just aren't very practical for regular people.

The "could be better solved in a different manner." part was mostly about how the underlying software for the instances might be changed to allow for some of these existing solutions to be integrated more seamlessly.

Or something entirely new, who knows.

Nah crossposts are a solution for a different problem, 4 is for when an instance hasn’t federated with another instances remote comm yet and is therefore unknown to the instance

For example, I made this post to my comm at !gunnerkrigg@lemmy.cafe today from this toast.ooo instance I’m on rn

But toast.ooo never federated with that comm so as far as this instance knew !gunnerkrigg@lemmy.cafe didn’t exist until I manually went to the comm by URL (toast.ooo/c/gunnerkrigg@lemmy.cafe) and subbed to it

Until then nobody on this instance would have been seeing posts from that comm in their c/all/new/whatever feed, even if a post went “viral”. But now they will and for every other comm I sub to as I go

I didn't know this is how it worked, makes sense in that context.

I'm not sure catering to the opinions of random redditors is a useful approach, but that aside.

The Lemmy network and the Threadiverse at large being associated as just a Tankie hangout

Which would be solved by creating an instance (or building up an existing instance) that isn't the triad.

In this case Rimu (PieFed dev) and others were quick to jump in and steer, so hopefully this whole boycotting/cross-posting campaign at the very least gives them more fuel when these comments come up on the outside something like “Tankies are there, but they don’t have any important comms so you can just block those 3 instances or join [x] instance which blocks them for you”

Which would also be solved with the same solution.

From your list:

1. Promoting smaller instances, because of the volume of my posting it helps makes smaller instances more recognizable
2. Making comms on fitting smaller instances (e.g. a programming comm id make on programming.dev)
3. Mitigating against the imposter problem
4. Better interconnecting smaller instances

1 sounds like artificially inflating the numbers

2 isn't that useful IMO because without the actual content / ongoing engagement you just end up with multiple ghost communities.

3 i think the imposter problem is a user education error and/or could be better solved in a different manner.

4 this is what cross-posting is for right (though I'll admit that experience is lacklustre right now)? You don't need a whole account to cross-post between communities.

Artificially inflating the numbers might look like it helps in the short term, but is bringing someone here under false pretences a workable solution, or even a solution you want ?

Injecting activity into non-.ml comms and growing them beyond the .ml version is probably the next best thing to wide defederation.

This makes sense.

Kinda, it helps dilute the waters further, but doesn’t really solve the root issue

It's probably something obvious i'm missing, but what is the root problem ?

Again, i could be wrong here, but it sounds like you're expecting a group of people who have shown no interest in moving on any of their positions to change their minds because you are drawing attention to content and behaviour...that they don't deem to be an issue in the first place.

That sounds like screaming into the void to me, but as i said, i really don't understand the nuances at play.

Isn't the system expected response to such irreconcilable disagreements to start your own instance (with optional hookers and blackjack), enforce your own rules and regulations there and let people decide which they prefer (if any)?

The multiple accounts aren’t for avoiding bans and no account of mine is currently banned (except for the ones I don’t control (had a bit of an imposter problem last year)) they’re really just for those 4 reasons listed.

Makes sense.

This sounds like the AI effect at work. Google’s got an AI that’s autonomously generating novel publishable scientific results and now that’s dismissed as them being just “good at math.”

I can see why it might seem that way from the small reply i gave, but contextually it was in response to you referencing a maths specific problem.

I also went out of my way to specifically raise the same points as in that link, wrt to "intelligence" measurements and definitions.

I wasn't advocating for one way or the other, just pointing out that (afaik) we don't currently have a good way of defining or measuring either kind of intelligence, let alone a way to compare them [*].

So timelines on when one will surpass the other by any objective measurements are moot.

[*] Comparisons on isolated tasks is possible and useful in some contexts,but not useful in a general measurement sense without an actual idea of what we should be measuring.

As in, you can measure which vehicle is heavier, but in a context of "Which of these is more red" , weight means nothing.

The root article that this thread is about isn’t about AGI at all, though. It’s about an AI that’s doing computer chip design.

You yourself quoted a response with the phrase "human intelligence" in an ML based context.

I was clearly replying to your comment and not the article itself.

Measures of intelligence are all iffy at best, but I’m pretty sure "being better at raw math" isn't a good one in isolation, especially seeing as that has been the case for a very long time.

CPU's and GPU's are basically just doing really fast math repeatedly.

That aside i'd, challenge you to find a universally accepted definition of "human intelligence" that works as a benchmark we can also use to measure machine intelligence.

afaik, we're still murky on whether or not we are just really efficient specialised computers working with electric meat instead of electric stone.

The term normally used when talking about MI that is similar enough to human intelligence is AGI and even then, there's not consensus on what that actually means.

How would people have read that math in the diamond?!

You mean , how would i describe the process of doing the thing i specifically said was guesswork outside of my expertise and not relevant because it was referencing something never posited ?

I wouldn't, that's what area experts are for.

And how would math transmit moral values? I feel like this leaves the realm of mathematics, lol.

Interesting questions, for a conversation where the answer are relevant to the discussion.

You complain about the best way to do things in this world (despite the time and alterations) but provide no alternative.

Didn't happen, read it again.

If God wanted us to be perfect, he would’ve made us without free will, just automatons following moral law, but he gave us free will and wants us to be good, as there’s no perfection in this world.

Rampant speculation and irrelevant.

So i see this big wall of text, to save time I’m just going to refer to the shorthand for you replies (that I’ve already mentioned) and possibly direct fallacies, if they apply, if something new comes up I’ll address that directly.

he direction and base idea of things like the TC are undeniable and easily understood, but if one wants to rationalize and deform the words therein they can, one can be as silly as possible if one wants to.

• “My interpretation is correct"
• "I’m surprised you don’t understand"

If you want to rationalize murder even though they told you not to kill, or rationalize cheating even though they told you not to lust over women you’re not married to, well, that’s on you (didn’t a Brit king create a whole religion just to cheat?).

• “My interpretation is correct"
• "the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine"

But no one can, in good faith, both say they believe in the TC, for example, and God’s judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you can’t do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?

• "the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine"
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”"

And how are people not being “real people” a thing? Where does God say some people are people and others aren’t?

Not an actual thing i claimed or wish to, i said there are people who think/have though that, some of them bringing that into their religious doctrine.

I don't buy you not understanding the concept of slavery, caste or any of the other systems that lead to personhood being revoked in some peoples minds.

I'm going to add "Feigned Ignorance" to the list of autoreplies

Just in case, there was a big big war about this not so long ago.

Why is murdering an innocent adult okay but not an innocent child?

Not what i said, read it again.

What? Which divine mandate?

Any

I’m only speaking for monotheism, best encapsulated in the Qur’an, but again, I don’t see “God chose me so I can be immoral” in the Mosaic laws, in Ecclesiastes or the message of Jesus.

• "Feigned Ignorance"

You know that's not what I’m saying, there wouldn't need to be an explicit entry about something there just has to be enough room for someone to interpret something that way.

And the Qur’an is pretty detailed when it comes to war and how it’s even better to release prisoners (some societies take no prisoners but it’s better not to kill in Islam and all of Abrahamic monotheism), even if they initiated the war.

• "Feigned Ignorance"

Again, you know this but what is actually written is not the problem i've been referencing(mostly), it's the room for interpretation.

And all you’ve given me is examples of heresy, not belief.

oh damn, got you a trifecta, congrats

• “My interpretation is correct"
• "the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine"
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

Come on, man. Of course these people exist

Nearly there...so close...

and maybe that was the spin they used to convince others but they fully knew what was up (or they also lied to themselves a bit and only partially knew what was up, which is why it’s a good policy to be honest), that’s why they had to spin it in the first place.

Aww , so close, yet so far.

But this in an interesting segue into a topic i'm sure you'll have lots of fun dodging.

How important is intent.

If a "bad apple" misleads people into murdering for the "greater good" do those people get a pass because they thought they were doing the right thing ?

How about if they unwittingly (but directly) contribute to the murder of someone ?

You can’t both believe, truly, that your soul is going to Hell for committing grave transgressions and also commit them, unless you’re actually insane and want to be deservedly tortured for your own misdeeds forever. Most people are not crazy, though.

• "My interpretation is correct"
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

You absolutely can, it's a shitty system full l of logical loopholes.

A big one being, "fuck it I’m going to hell forever anyway, what's one more sin added to the list, where are they going to put me, super hell?".

Damn that shorthand really does make this quicker

Why don’t you give me an example of a better way to transmit information than through words, one that could have been applied throughout history?

Firstly : Why would i need to, i wasn't claiming there was a better option ( at the time ).

Secondly : I specifically mentioned spoken and written(on paper) words, not just words in general.

Thirdly : if i had to guess, probably some form of math stored in some long term medium like diamond or something, i'm just guessing though, not my area and still don't need to have a good example for a point i wasn't making.

Bonus : Another of my points was that why would i need to when there is an omnipotent deity around, whose job it is to do it.

My whole argument has been that i disagree with your repeated assertion that they are accurate to the original intention, easily understandable and not prone to misinterpretation (intentional and otherwise).

Also the "my morality is the only correct morality” thing, i cannot stress enough how much of a red flag that one is.

And it’s not that they didn’t read it properly, it’s that they simply don’t care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didn’t, they wouldn’t care. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know what’s up, they simply don’t care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. It’s not a “no true Scotsman”, it’s more like “if I’m raping a child and you find me and I tell you I’m a good moral man, a believer who’s afraid of God’s judgment, and you believe me, you’re mentally challenged”. And many people are, I guess.

You have to be intentionally skipping logical steps here, no way someone with your vocabulary accidentally overlooks the thousands/millions of "holy" warriors and zealots who wholeheartedly believe(d) in their interpretation of the guidelines.

• They aren't 's children so it's fine.
• If this leads them to the righteous path, it's fine.
• They aren't real people so it doesn't apply.
• It's not stealing it's fundraising for the furthering of our divine cause.
• If i kill/main/harm the infidels/blasphemers will reward me.
• if i dont kill/main/harm the infidels/blasphemers will punish me.
• I'm one of the chosen, i can do because has given me a divine mandate.

Come on now, pretending an easily provable demographic of people don't exist because it doesn't fit your narrative is the weakest of sauces.

You can do better.

I somewhat agree with most of that, that particular brand of toxic masculinity is gaining traction and that is a problem.

Let's not pretend that this is new though, almost the entirety of modern western civilization has been patriarchal to a fairly extreme degree, this is just the latest flavour.

I'm not dismissing the current problems with all of that, just pointing out that the problem of enforced gender/sex specific division isn't new these are just the latest grifters, it's also not specific to men ,with differing problems for all sides.

This is a systemic societal problem and will almost certainly need solutions that acknowledge that, otherwise you are treating only the symptoms.

None of which is an actual answer to my original question.

That would imply an "essence" of masculinity that was not defined by it's lack of femininity.

That somebody would be pushed towards an ideal of masculinity and dissuaded from an ideal of femininity implies that both exist.

Not necessarily completely separate, but still existing at least partially individually.

I'm still confused over what is meant by

The essence of being male is to not be female.

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious or i have some bias getting in the way of my understanding.

Fair enough, i could probably also do with being a bit less sarcastic to things that might just be honest mistakes.

As a genuine question, what point are you maintaining, I've lost the thread and don't know which one you mean?