207
Which instances have the most ban-happy moderators? Analysis inside (piefed.social)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
locked 372 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I did some analysis of the modlog and found this:

V8lPrxY1qxcISLe.png

Ok, bigger instances ban more often. Not surprising, because they have more communities and more users and more trouble. But hang on, dbzer0 isn't a very big instance. What happens if we do a ratio of bans vs number of users?

vyfUNYTrX9pHQeR.png

Ok, so lemmy.ml, dbzer0 and pawb are issue an outsized amount of bans for the number of users they have... But surely the number of communities the instance hosts is going to mean they have to ban more? Bans are used to moderate communities, not just to shield their user-base from the outside. Let's look at the number of bans per community hosted:

Yrc7TofOr88SeGt.png

Seems like dbzer0 really loves to ban. Even more than the marxists and the furries! What is it about dbzer0 that makes them such prolific banners?

Raw-ish numbers and calculations are in this spreadsheet if anyone wants to make their own charts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 6 months ago (23 children)

It's not capable of experiencing anything. Everything we're doing with ai and LLMs is no where remotely near genuine intelligence or an AGI or accounting like that. Everything we have right now is nothing more than fancy autocomplete, and it's not even particularly great at that in the first place. You have fundamental misunderstandings of the technology to cartoonish degree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (22 children)

    You're wrong, you don't know how the human brain produces subjective sensation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I usually disagree with you about everything but I think you have a valid point here. This was an issue I studied very closely when I was in university, and you're right, no one has the slightest clue how consciousness works. Saying "oh ChatGTP is just a statistical machine so it can't be conscious" is like saying "oh the human brain is just a bunch of neural firings so it can't produce consciousness". In both cases, consciousness is not an obvious end result, but here we are.

    That said, personally I don't think ChatGTP is conscious, but it's wrong for people to act like it being a philosophical zombie is obvious; the possibility of it being conscious is actually compatible with most nonreligious people's belief systems already. Unfortunately the anti-AI hate on Lemmy won't allow people to see the nuance on this discussion and they will interperet this as me somehow defending AI slop, which I am in no way trying to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    The source of the whole problem is that OpenAI did something weird.

    If OpenAI had said "It's not conscious, it's your p-zombie slave", that would make perfect sense and the anti-ai crowd would be saying the opposite.

    But instead, OpenAI said "It's your personal conscious willing slave" and people instinctively started saying the exact opposite. It's because there are science bros who hate OpenAI because they doubt the claims, and environmentalists and artists and socialists who hate it for the other reasons, and the various groups have allied over their hatred and adopted one another's beliefs.

    Now, I'm an environmentalist, an enjoyer of good art, a socialist, and a vegan. So I hate OpenAI over the established lines of all of those philosophies. But because the science bros complained louder earlier and have more social influence, they joined the AI hate community and spread their perspective first. And that results in people having no idea how to fit the vegan perspective into any of this.

    TL;DR: People choose their beliefs according to political allegiance moreso than logic, and OpenAI chose its enemies in a weird way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (19 children)

    Yeah we do. With neurons and electrochemical signals. Seriously bro go get you some basic education.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (10 children)

    This is a very ignorant comment. Consciousness is legitimately the greatest unsolved problem in modern science and philosophy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (9 children)

    Not really. It's an emergent property of our biological processes. It's not some nebulous thing like you and grail seem to think. Everything that lives is self aware and has some degree of consciousness. Without mimicking any of the biological processes and functions that living things have there can be no functional consciousness that's close enough to our understanding of consciousness to be relevant. You both sound like high schoolers that got high for the first time and had their very first deep thoughts that weren't actually deep, just really really stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (8 children)

    With all due respect, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Here is some info on this topic if you are all interested in learning more

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (7 children)

    Ok great. Now, explain specifically and with examples how exactly any of that is relevant to LLMs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (6 children)

    Whether or not LLMs are conscious depends on what theory of consciousness you are working on, and there is no universally accepted theory of consciousness. Every theory of consciousness is controversial, and most experts would probably agree that the correct theory has yet to be discovered. The point is that we simply don’t know enough about consciousness to confidently say which systems have it and which systems don’t.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    So we can't even prove consciousness is actually real in the first place. All we know is we have a subjective experience we rationalize through the concept of consciousness and given that this is the only experiential notion of it in the first place it makes no sense to ever apply it to an algorithm. We can have a separate philosophical discussion about whether humans are anything other than input->output machines with a bunch of fancy software that tricks is into thinking that we're thinking, but as of yet there's no reason to think any computer program in existence is anything other than a fancy calculator. Calculators aren't conscious, or intelligent, or thinking, or capable of subjective experience. The entire position is based on a null hypothesis. I do believe a computer could eventually become conscious but not any computer humans are capable of building or programming any time soon if ever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    The theory you’re discussing is called eliminative materialism (or illusionism) and it’s detailed in the link I sent you, along with a host of other metaphysical theories. Like every other theory eliminative materialism has significant issues

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    Theories of mind don't apply to computer programs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah and we're not having a philosophical conversation. Provide evidence for your view or this is just religion with extra steps. And why it would apply to LLMs but not the device you're posting on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    At no point did I say this was my view. You said “theories of mind don’t involve computer programs” so I sent you one that does, to show that your statement isn’t necessarily correct. More broadly, I am simply pointing out the a diversity of views exist, and there is no consensus, so we cannot say we know what causes consciousness, like you did earlier. At this point though I don’t really feel like continuing the conversation because your excessive immaturity makes talking to you a chore

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    You're seriously saying you've solved the hard problem of consciousness, which has stumped philosophers and neuroscientists for thousands of years? You know how the brain creates consciousness?

    Well then where's your nobel prize, Einstein?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    Holy shit seriously? Now you're trying to bring philosophical rhetoric into a practical discussion? Go to fucking college kid. Jesus Christ you desperately need to learn how to learn. And yes, we know pretty well that consciousness is an emergent property of the sum total of our biological processes. It also may be entirely made up as a way our brains filter and process all the input of receives but that's neither here nor there because I can't wait to hear what's next on your dip shit docket of misunderstanding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    You're the one who claimed you know how the brain creates experiences and you're absolutely certain we can't replicate that process with computers. You seemed so sure, five minutes ago.

    It's like hearing a kid say "I have absolutely no idea how a nuclear reactor functions, but I'm completely certain it has nothing to do with steam engines"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    And fuckin hell there you go arguing with yourself again. Nobody said anything about being able to eventually replicate it with computers, it's unlikely but maybe quantum computing could handle it, but regardless any existing tech in the AI space absolutely fucking without any shade of doubt is not remotely close to that. Like fucking at all. And steam turbines don't have shit to do with the reactor itself, they're for generating power from the reactor, that's a stupid attempt at a gotcha and you just keep proving I'm dealing with someone with only primary education at best.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    No, that's what you read because your reading comprehension matches your understanding of the other subjects we've discussed. Go to fucking school, Jesus Christ. Get a legitimate education instead of just making shit up in your head and assuming that's correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    You're really bad at arguing, you just say "nuh uh" and berate Me for not agreeing with you. It's like talking to a man from the 1950s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •