Search
232 results for “hrefna”
-
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
Nivenly, the cooperative that runs hachyderm.io, is having a community discussion and vote on what to do about Haidra and AIHorde, a distributed generative AI system.
@quintessence's Our First Community Discussion and Vote: Haidra has a summary and information about next steps. @Db0's The Birth of Haidra and the Join With Nivenly has background.
The discussion's open to all but voting is restricted to members They're also tracking discussion on social media in the Discord chatrooms but ask that official questions be submitted via Github discussions or email to [email protected]. They're gathering questions between now 8 Aug 2023, and will be. posting followup blog pots, followed by a general member discussion from August 14 - 25 August 2023 and an "election" after -- specific mechanism TBD,
Eligible voters including project members, trade members, and general members who pay $7/month). Something that's always interesting to watch in situations like this who's at the table. For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting? What happens if somebody used #AIHorde ("a crowdsourced distributed cluster of Image generation workers and text generation workers") to generate fake avatars and profiles, sign up 1000 new accounts and voted to ban these exploitative tools?
Here's an excellent thread from @hrefna with some initial thoughts and questions https://hachyderm.io/@hrefna/110833561126744694). The "ACM" references in the thread are to the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct at https://ethics.acm.org/
Nivenly's discussion potentially affects cross-intance communication as well, and is a good chance to think about AI-related issues in general. In the Github discussion, for example, somebody brought up a question about whether posts and images that federate to hachyderm (or another nivenly-run instance) would be used to train future AIs. With Haidra, based on the discussion so far, the answer appears to be no; but this isn't the only situation where there's a risk of using federated data without consent to train AIs. What kind of ground rules do other instances want to have, and do we need to have conventions such as extending the nodeinfo structure (which gives basic data about every fediveres instance) to include information about whether or not an instance is using data for AI training?
So it's certainly a discussion worth tracking -- and participating in, if you're interested.
EDIT: A response in the github discussion describes why data federating to Hachyderm isn't being used to train Haidra's models, so I updated the text above to make that clear. It's still a good example of how this conversation highlights more general issues. If other instances using images and text they receive to train AI models, should they have to disclose it?
-
We were utterly and completely unwilling to sacrifice features for any customer, for any group of customers, for any group of potential customers. Our product needed to do _everything_ for _everybody_.
So the product got increasingly muddled over time, and we kept looking to new products to save us, but those new products never materialized because, in part, old habits die hard.
We couldn't focus, and so we died.
There's a lesson in here about AI.
It doesn't matter how quickly you build things, if you can never build the right things.
-
At a former company one of the ways I knew we were in deep trouble was when we all read The Blue Ocean Strategy and upper management started talking in terms of what we were going to do in order to "move into a blue ocean." recognizing that we were in a deep red ocean, how do we fix this?
I don't have anything in particular against the Blue Ocean Strategy. It's a model that can be useful for clarifying your thinking around things, surrounding by a bunch of jargon and marketing hype, but the core of it is fundamentally okay.
Part of the Blue Ocean strategy is to say:
1. What can we do that is new, different from our competitors?
2. What can we do _better_ than our competitors?
3. What can we do "well enough" but make some sacrifices on relative to our competitors?
4. What can we _remove_ that our competitors do?They very reluctantly put one thing in (4).
I said "that's great! so what are we doing with feature X and feature Y, which are clearly aimed at doing things in (4)?"
X & Y were massive weights around our necks and made everything harder. Sacrificing them from what we were doing, even with a long transition path, would have been a solid step forward.
The product team had a very memorable pause and got back to me: "well, maybe we only are going to talk in those terms for our _new_ products."
Those new products never got out of beta and the company died.
-
A lot of what I see with AI reminds me of the "future of work" conversations from over ten years ago, just on a bigger scale.
People who are basically trying to manifest their vision into reality, when their vision is neither particularly clear nor particularly grounded in reality. The loudest proponents are those who aren't in a place to practice it, who simply aren't practicing what they are saying, or those who have applied it on such a trivial scale as to be irrelevant. No one can quite figure out what it is supposed to look like but everyone is sure it will be AWESOME and that if you aren't DOING IT you will be LEFT BEHIND.
But the more you dig into it, the more it becomes obvious that none of these people have a clue, with everyone caught up in a groupthink about what it might be and a fear that if the aren't promising the moon they will be left behind.
-
Some thoughts on features that would, unlike Zero, make a language "easy for AI."
Really a lot of it are things that people who work in software would balk at, but which make programs unequivocally cleaner.
Examples.
1. Linear types. Not just affine types but _linear_ types prevent the discarding of resources and makes cleanup both implicit and cheap.
2. Clear, up-front documentation of effects. If you use a database, you have to declare it in the method signature.
3. "One correct way to do it." this will reduce the number of samples required for training dramatically and prevent style drift. Limiting syntactic sugar unless that sugar is the only way to do it.
4. No operator overloading and extremely limited (if any) operator reuse. Operators typically have distinct meanings. This assists with tokenization.
5. Design by Contract. Enforce pre and post conditions with a proof engine. This will provide strong correctness guarantees.
6. Built in emphasis on specs and specifications.This is the kind of thinking is what I would like to see. Instead what I see is "what if error messages were in JSON and we got rid of gc."
-
I have lost my mind.
(paper is Well-typed programs can't be blamed)
-
"Is Seattle turning into Gotham? There was a _murder_ O_O it's becoming REALLY DANGEROUS"
Dear.
Seattle's murder rate is around 7 per 100k people.
Where I grew up the number was close to 75 per 100k people.
Yes. Murders are tragic, especially when they are close to home, and also please gain an ounce of perspective.
-
I'm not saying your identity as a "male lesbian" is invalid, I'm saying that I want to know exactly what you mean when you use those terms, because it will tell me how we relate to one another in community.
Why do people struggle with this concept. This isn't challenging their right to labels, this is trying to understand what the frak they _mean_.
-
"I don't know the context on this but…"
Okay you do know, random man, that you can just stop talking if you don't have context. Right?
-
Ah, my least favorite hobby, get CL/PR approvals from high level people.
-
So far, in a one week time period, I have:
* Written go
* Written C++
* Written Python
* Written protobufs
* Written SQL
* Written documentation
* Filled out my expectations ("what I'm planning to get done this year, updated for the quarter")yesh x_x
-
So #Dimension20's new series, City Council of Darkness, as far as I can tell is based on the following premise:
What if we took the LEAST COMPETENT group of vampires we could find. The kind of vampires where typically we'd kill their sires and their grandsires for not terminating them. The kind that their best case prospects are being used for canon fodder or scientific experiments.
Take that group and put them in charge of a Court of a small town. For some reason.
-
Setting aside the deliberately provocative lead-in, I'd like to talk about something about how unions work that I think a lot of leftists could learn from.
When you see a worker in trouble you have solidarity with them _first_. It doesn't matter if it has never happened to you personally, or if you don't know the specifics, you can figure out a time when you were degraded, or hurt, or treated without regard for your humanity by management. You can empathize and show up regardless because we are all victims under the capitalist system.
It's not about who this person is, what they might have done previously, whether the policy affects someone you know personally, or anything like that. You show up for them because they are a _fellow worker_.
It also goes back to: find ways to connect it back to how we are treated as workers. Every time.
https://workerorganizing.org/trans-workers-belong-in-unions-15299/
-
ULP strike is on! A solidarity boycott has been requested.
Go get 'em.
-
Yes. There are differences in risk profiles and experiences between those of us who are on hormones and/or have had surgeries and those who aren't/haven't.
We're all still fucking trans. Get the fuck over yourself. People can have different experiences under the same umbrella categories.
No we don't need to bring back "transsexual" (or "cissexual") to _differentiate_ either. Dear gods.
I say that _as_ someone who has had surgeries and _as_ someone on hormones and _as_ someone who experiences substantive diagnosed gender dysphoria.
Also as someone who is #ActuallyAutistic stop trying to make #ActuallyTrans or whatever a thing. I see what you are doing and it is the exact _opposite_ of the origin of that hashtag in the autistic community.
-
Think local, think small, think about who you can personally reach.
* A D&D party worth of people can make meaningful change in a small town or city council.
* The people who surround you at work almost certainly could be unionized, and you can build unions in apartment complexes etc. We ended child labor for unionized companies and implemented eight hour days long before those became laws. You can do something similar in churches and in most organizations.
* Bake your neighbors a pie. Get to know them.
#BeTheResistance
https://infosec.exchange/@Em0nM4stodon/115028682626313133 -
Think local, think small, think about who you can personally reach.
* A D&D party worth of people can make meaningful change in a small town or city council.
* The people who surround you at work almost certainly could be unionized, and you can build unions in apartment complexes etc. We ended child labor for unionized companies and implemented eight hour days long before those became laws. You can do something similar in churches and in most organizations.
* Bake your neighbors a pie. Get to know them.
#BeTheResistance
https://infosec.exchange/@Em0nM4stodon/115028682626313133 -
Think local, think small, think about who you can personally reach.
* A D&D party worth of people can make meaningful change in a small town or city council.
* The people who surround you at work almost certainly could be unionized, and you can build unions in apartment complexes etc. We ended child labor for unionized companies and implemented eight hour days long before those became laws. You can do something similar in churches and in most organizations.
* Bake your neighbors a pie. Get to know them.
#BeTheResistance
https://infosec.exchange/@Em0nM4stodon/115028682626313133 -
Think local, think small, think about who you can personally reach.
* A D&D party worth of people can make meaningful change in a small town or city council.
* The people who surround you at work almost certainly could be unionized, and you can build unions in apartment complexes etc. We ended child labor for unionized companies and implemented eight hour days long before those became laws. You can do something similar in churches and in most organizations.
* Bake your neighbors a pie. Get to know them.
#BeTheResistance
https://infosec.exchange/@Em0nM4stodon/115028682626313133 -
Think local, think small, think about who you can personally reach.
* A D&D party worth of people can make meaningful change in a small town or city council.
* The people who surround you at work almost certainly could be unionized, and you can build unions in apartment complexes etc. We ended child labor for unionized companies and implemented eight hour days long before those became laws. You can do something similar in churches and in most organizations.
* Bake your neighbors a pie. Get to know them.
#BeTheResistance
https://infosec.exchange/@Em0nM4stodon/115028682626313133 -
Meanwhile, I need to figure out how I am going to run a star wars game and a cyberpunk (#NeonRain) game as kind of my next big projects there.
-
Meanwhile, I need to figure out how I am going to run a star wars game and a cyberpunk (#NeonRain) game as kind of my next big projects there.
-
Meanwhile, I need to figure out how I am going to run a star wars game and a cyberpunk (#NeonRain) game as kind of my next big projects there.
-
Meanwhile, I need to figure out how I am going to run a star wars game and a cyberpunk (#NeonRain) game as kind of my next big projects there.
-
Meanwhile, I need to figure out how I am going to run a star wars game and a cyberpunk (#NeonRain) game as kind of my next big projects there.