this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
364 points (98.4% liked)

World News

39376 readers
3248 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Angry Russians displaced after Ukraine crossed the border and invaded the Kursk region last week have vented their frustrations online to President Vladimir Putin.

The criticisms represent an unusually public show of defiance in a country where any cracks at the leader or military can draw harsh punishments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NOT_RICK 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In this instance it’s accurate

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then OP should have found a way to present it so that people could more easily verify it and not just expect us all to trust software which constantly lies.

[–] g0zer 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It’s not a 14 page paper, it’s two references to widely known historical events. I feel like I’m going insane…

Prompt: In 1-2 sentences, summarize the Russian revolution”s impact on social unrest.

Responses: Amidst widespread dissatisfaction with the Tsarist regime due to economic hardship, military failures, and political repression, the Russian people ultimately overthrew a centuries-old monarchy.

I’m not saying “create me a story about Russian people revolting”. I’m taking an event I’m already aware of and asking for it to get boiled down to a simple statement.

I would know if it’s lying because I paid attention in high school and college & I know what the Russian revolution is.

This is being blown way out of proportion because people see “LLM” and freak out. I use LLMs constantly in my day to day life for shit like this (and I’m not going to stop). I also feed it things I’ve written and ask it to check grammar and tighten it up. The LLM isn’t “creating” anything in those cases either, it’s just making things easier to read/understand; acting as an editor.

Sorry if that scares you.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't scare me. I just see no reason to trust LLMs after all the lies. There are plenty of legitimate sources that could be quoted.

[–] g0zer 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924.

Orlando Figes, 1998

Go read it and tell me what you learn; happy?

[–] FlyingSquid 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Believe it or not, there is a huge gulf between "paste what a lying sentence construction machine says" and "require people to go to the right library."

But of course, that would require you to be arguing in good faith.

[–] g0zer 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Lmao, we aren’t talking about some obscure, niche topic. You asked for a source and I gave you one…

Stop moving the goalposts; if anyone is arguing in bad faith it’s you my friend.

Google “russian revolution 1917” and read the first academic article you see. Your lack of research is not my responsibility…

[–] FlyingSquid 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I never moved the goalposts. If you can't figure out how to paste text from and then link to a couple of websites on the subject or even Wikipedia and thus rely on the thing that tells people to put glue on pizza, don't be surprised if you're criticized for it.

[–] g0zer 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m perfectly capable of pasting a link to a website; I chose to use a source from a book I read in college and is sitting on a shelf at my house.

I’m not obligated to do a Google search for you.

And again, the LLM isn’t doing my research for me; it’s summarizing an event that I’m already aware of.

[–] FlyingSquid 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm afraid you don't understand how the burden of proof works. I'd give you an easy link to understand it, but someone told me recently, "I'm not obligated to do a Google search for you."

[–] g0zer 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you can’t be bothered to spend 5 mins looking something up then you’re welcome to believe whatever you want.

This isn’t a court case, we’re having a conversation in an Internet forum. What you’re calling a “burden of proof”, I’m choosing to call intellectual laziness.

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m choosing to call intellectual laziness.

Now that's some irony from someone who gets sentence-construction software to write posts on their behalf.

[–] g0zer 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are you incapable of grasping that the LLM wrote a total of like 3 sentences in a 3 paragraph comment?

And yea, the fact that you can’t seem to google 3 words and read a couple articles instead of being purposefully obtuse reeks of intellectual laziness.

Sorry, not sorry.

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"I wasn't being lazy because I only used the lie machine a little bit."

Gotcha.

[–] g0zer 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So you don’t have an actual argument, you’re just going to prop up the LLM strawman instead?

Is what I said wrong? Or are your feelings hurt because I used a tool to summarize something?

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You are now flagrantly violating our incivility rule. If you wish to continue this discussion, do not violate it again. If you do not wish to continue it, that is fine.

[–] g0zer 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Lmao, what authority do you hold?

So, calling out blatant logical fallacies is not being civil?

Ok buddy, you do you…

[–] FlyingSquid -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The authority of my being a moderator in this community.

This was the uncivil part:

Or are your feelings hurt because I used a tool to summarize something?

Please read the rules in the sidebar. Specifically, rule 5.

[–] g0zer 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And that’s different from this in what way?

-"I wasn't being lazy because I only used the lie machine a little bit."

Practice what you preach.

[–] FlyingSquid 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That would have been after you had called me lazy, would it not? I was pointing out that you were doing what you were calling me. It was demonstrative.

Do you think it is wise to continue down this hostile path with me? I think you would do best to walk away before you do something you shouldn't.

[–] g0zer 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Your argument is intellectually lazy, I stand by what I said.

I’m only mirroring your attitude friend, ban me if you want. Plenty of other places I can take my opinion. You would think as a mod you would want to foster participation in the community, and not get hung up on something so petty.

You came at me aggressively off the bat; if you can’t admit that, then we aren’t ever going to see eye to eye.

Screenshotting this whole thread.

[–] FlyingSquid 0 points 4 months ago

I don't plan on banning you. But I will delete any further posts that violate the civility rule.

I never even suggested I would ban you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I find it extremely difficult to believe two events over 70 years apart that I know are very different in many ways could ultimately have the same underlying cause.

And as you haven't actually made a point, just asserted they do, there's no reason to believe they do. LLM or not

[–] g0zer 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don’t know what to tell you. You can pretty easily look up the agreed upon causes of two pretty impactful and well known historical events. We aren’t talking about some small conflict in some small village in sub-Saharan Africa; the events in question are the Russian revolution and fall of the Soviet Union.

I’m sure you can find dissenting opinions, but what I commented is largely agreed upon.

Had I not been honest about using LLMs to summarize a few sentences, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. If you want to play devils advocate, provide a differing opinion. Your only hang up seems to be that I used a LLM in any capacity.

I’m not even saying it’s the only cause, just that it contributed…