Unfortunately unless you are a tiny niche community that isn’t ever targeted by spam or idiots (and how common is that really), moderators are a necessary evil. You probably don’t hate moderators. You probably hate bad/aggressive/biased/etc moderators. Or maybe sometimes you are the problem, I don’t know. It is not a problem with an easy solution. Usually large forums with no moderation become quickly unbearable to most people. And then moderators become in turn unbearable to some people.

Maybe a trusted AI can do a better job at this - like give it the community rules and ask it to enforce them objectively, transparently, and dispassionately, unless a certain number of participants complain, in which case it can reverse its decision and learn from that.

Do you use the integrated AI in new versions of Excel or do you ask ChatGPT or some other AI to write it out for you?

Really? The Telegraph? All the while downvoting the poor bot that’s trying to signal that this is a website know for rather poor quality journalism? (to put it mildly)

I guess it’s sometimes done in the spirit of forcing men to really consider their actions, because most of the men I know tend to think abusive men are always other men. And we usually have plenty excuses for our own abusive behavior. So it is like saying: “no, stop with the excuses, the problem is you”, in the hopes that this message will also reach its intended audience, ie the many men who are abusive to women in one way or another and, largely, in denial.

But I agree, these kinds of slogans annoy the hell out of me too and are totally not helpful in more ways than one, e.g., when men seek protection from abuse. I guess there are better ways of making a more forceful point about holding men accountable.

BG3 vibes anyone?

I’m all for putting some blame on the West, but the responsibility for the human rights abuses in these countries currently lies much more with their rulers than anyone else. And they are not just “right wing” by western standards, as there is also virtually no “left wing” over there that I know of by the same standards. I think that resorting to a leftie “colonialism bad” and “right wing bad” argument waves away the role of religion and local culture. It is, in essence, a very western critique I feel. Far from being an expert on this myself, just my 2c.

Maybe that person had trouble adjusting to SK life and was missing his country and/or people back home. Nothing to see here. It is only “surprising” because presumably they took some risk in leaving and because we only ever hear about NK in the context of its authoritarian government and it being some dystopian nightmare presumably, though if we’re being honest most of us don’t know two shits about the country and I bet to some people it’s simply home.

Why does anyone want to go back to any country that others are desperate to leave? For reasons…

This looks more like a scythe that doubles as a weapon to me

I think you have expressed my fear quite well. Maybe it is as I feared. I don’t know much about Sweden, but I do have the feeling that the far right everywhere gets brownie points for just naming things the left will leave untouched (with a huge amount of hyperbole, racial hatred and scapegoating to be sure). I’m not in any way trying to force an “immigrants bad” argument, just fearing that a surge in crime involving migrant populations benefits the far right disproportionately, especially if the rest of the political spectrum seem unable to effectively address the issue in a more socially productive and progressive manner.

So, if i got this right, you seem to be implying that immigrants, or at least non-native Swedes as some may have citizenship, don’t know, are implicated in this violence, right? But that the situation today is a result of several policy failures by different governments and it’s not necessarily something to be tied to more recent waves of immigration. It wasn’t clear from the article. I just wanted to understand whether this plays right into the far right playbook once more. Of course poverty is a common factor in crime, but (unfortunately) the topic currently dominating European politics is immigration, and a surge in crime is an almost certain win for the extreme right in this climate.

That is not what I said, but ok, let’s leave it at this :)

Ok I’m going to ask the question that the article doesn’t address and also the question that will make all the progressive people on here uncomfortable: how does immigration play into this? Does it? Sweden is known for having a high percentage of foreign-born residents, most of them from outside the EU. It is the frequent punching bag of the extreme right for that reason and for its historically progressive policies. A far right that has been making gains there, as elsewhere. Is this an issue? Has Sweden failed to integrate foreigners who are now increasingly involved in the illegal drug trade and ensuing crime or are these unrelated?

Ooph, there the same issue again, about what we consider “propaganda”. I have yet to meet someone with objective standards on this, who is able to hold people he agrees with politically to the same standard. Many on here also seem to hate the MBFC ratings that were added to at least create some baseline. So, at the end of the day the value judgements people make on these matters are more often biased than not. Anyway, I am actually interested in even “mouthpieces”, as I am always curious how the other side actually defends what they do, and they could be just marked as such for the avoidance of doubt.

…and that is the problem with banning people for their views… sooner or later an echo chamber becomes boring. And they too will probably go elsewhere, where their views will go unchallenged as well. Fast forward a few years and everyone becomes ever more convinced of their own sectarian “truths”.

Unless he was particularly obnoxious about it, don’t know the story 🤷🏻‍♂️

Nothing is surprising about nations allying to advance common geopolitical and economic interests. Perhaps you are perturbed by the fact that these are not the US and its allies, who have indeed defined the world order in recent years, after the end of WW2 and especially after the fall of the USSR. I don’t think anyone is surprised - let alone failing to recognize - that the current world order is being challenged. Of course that does unfortunately mean a more uncertain and likely conflict-ridden future for all of us. But there are also those who look forward to a multipolar world, or at least the decline of “the West”, because it didn’t exactly serve everyone in the world equally well.

Granted, our tendency towards anthropomorphism is near ubiquitous. But it would be disingenuous to claim that it does not play out in very specific and very important ways in how we speak and think about LLMs, given that they are capable of producing very convincing imitations of human behavior. And as such also produce a very convincing impression of agency. As if they actually do decide things. Very much unlike dice.

You make a fair point. Not all “disappearances” are made equal. Unfortunately some people on here (and many out there) love taking sides, and once they have, they find it difficult to process anything with a certain critical distance. Maybe it didn’t help that your original comment sounded very dismissive, as if any such claims in Western media are more likely to be BS than not. We don’t know that. At least I don’t know that. One could of course collect data on that, could be an interesting little project. I’m sure there are folks tracking disappearances and disappearance claims.

I try to take such claims seriously and I think we all should, just in case there’s any truth to them and someone is actually kidnapped. Of course knowing that they may not have been. Flagging certain individuals as potentially at risk isn’t wrong per se. But I get your point about how it is a relatively easy claim to make and exploitable politically. Still, I think it should be taken seriously, just in case.

The AI did not “decide” anything. It has no will. And no understanding of the consequences of any particular “decision”. But I guess “probabilistic model produces erroneous output” wouldn’t get as many views. The same point could still be made about not placing too much trust on the output of such models. Let’s stop supporting this weird anthropomorphizing of LLMs. In fact we should probably become much more discerning in using the term “AI”, because it alludes to a general intelligence akin to human intelligence with all the paraphernalia of humanity: consciousness, will, emotions, morality, sociality, duplicity, etc.

Welp, regardless of the very real issues in these countries, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that precedes an invasion, as it did when Putin started publicly questioning Ukraine’s status as a country. This helps cement my assessment that Israel is going to go for a larger land grab with the pretext of building a buffer zone for the protection of its citizens.