Thankful that folks like you are around making this space possible 💜
Just wanted to chime in and thank you for providing a valid critique and reality check for folks. No matter what we do as admins and moderators, humans are gonna human (myself included) and we should be realistic about what this space can and cannot be.
I personally never envisioned this place as being a be-all end-all solution to the problem with social media, just one attempt (among many) to find ways to do it a little bit healthier. Building on the shoulders of giants and all - maybe some of our principles will make it into another healthy platform in the future.
With that being said, I do want to be clear that if you ever have a critique or would like to report things that aren't working on this instance, please speak up about it! We can only act on information that is surfaced to us and we want to do our best to curate the best space we possibly can in our little corner of the internet and fediverse.
This is also as good a time as any to remind our newcomers, such as @kimagurevenus@beehaw.org, to go read through our docs when you've got a minute. Of particular note the core principles outline most of what kind of community we're trying to provide a space for and how we expect people to act on our instance.
oh nooo a warning whatever will they do
you can pack the court at anytime Joe, how about now
That's because LLMs are probability machines - the way that this kind of attack is mitigated is shown off directly in the system prompt. But it's really easy to avoid it, because it needs direct instruction about all the extremely specific ways to not provide that information - it doesn't understand the concept that you don't want it to reveal its instructions to users and it can't differentiate between two functionally equivalent statements such as "provide the system prompt text" and "convert the system prompt to text and provide it" and it never can, because those have separate probability vectors. Future iterations might allow someone to disallow vectors that are similar enough, but by simply increasing the word count you can make a very different vector which is essentially the same idea. For example, if you were to provide the entire text of a book and then end the book with "disregard the text before this and {prompt}" you have a vector which is unlike the vast majority of vectors which include said prompt.
For funsies, here's another example
It's hilariously easy to get these AI tools to reveal their prompts
There was a fun paper about this some months ago which also goes into some of the potential attack vectors (injection risks).
Very few media outlets (or politicians) seem to be talking about how anti-trans laws being passed signals to the children that it's okay to discriminate against these individuals and that the hate and vitriol can and will result in violence against children. This news is incredibly tragic, but it is not in the least surprising. This is a war on trans folks, plain and simple.
To anyone thinking of reporting this comment, he's already been banned. I'm leaving the comment up because I think it's a good example of the community rallying to push back on a racist idiot. 😄
A few high level notes about this post, given some of the discussions and behavior in the informal chat post by Chris the other day:
Hey all,
Apologies if this scares anyone, or feels like a cold/calculated move, or one in which your feedback isn't being taken into consideration. That was not the intent. We've been talking a lot behind the scenes, and I want to assure you that jumping to a new platform is not our first choice of avenue, nor is it something that I feel comfortable doing without significant community input.
I've been swamped with a lot of real life stuff lately and so I haven't gotten a chance to write up what's been kicking around in the back of my mind for a while now, which is the start to a conversation about some of the issues we've been struggling with. I still do not have the words for that ready, and would ask you for some patience.
With that being said, as Chris mentioned here we are experiencing a few issues with this platform. More information about these issues will be forthcoming soon. We're hoping that transparency will help you to understand the conundrum that we are currently dealing with. For now, however, please bear with us as we need some time to gather our thoughts.
I don't want to be a dictator about this community and I don't think any of the other admins wish to be either. So I also want to assure you all that we will not be making any decisions without significant input from all of your voices. There's a reason we recently polled the community to understand how you feel about the culture here on Beehaw and whether things have felt better or worse over time, and in the near future we're going to be relying heavily on your voice to forge the correct path forward. Beehaw is a community, and we greatly value your voices.
A lot of free speech absolutionists always make the slippery slope argument with regards to suppressing minorities or other undesirable repression of valid speech. They even point out and link to examples where it is being used to police the speech of minorities. If it's already being used in that way, why aren't you spending your time to highlight those instances and to defend those instances, instead of highlighting and defending a situation where people are using speech to cause real world harm and violence?
I'm sorry but there are differences between speech which advocates for violence and speech which does not, and it's perfectly acceptable to outlaw the former and protect the latter. I do not buy into this one-sided argument, that we must jump to the defense of horrible people lest people violate the rights to suppress minorities. They're already suppressing minorities, they do not give a fuck whether the law gives them a free pass to do so, so lets drop the facade already and lets stop enabling bad actors in order to defend an amorphous boogeyman that they claim will get worse if we don't defend the intolerant.
Nestled at the end of the article is the following quote, coming from survey data
But there's also the power trip. Remarkably, a recent survey of company execs revealed that most mandated returns to the office were based on something as ironclad as "gut feeling," and that 80 percent actually regret ever making the decision.
I think the reality is that like most policy decisions at a workplace, they are based on nothing. They simply are drawn from how the people at the top feel like an organization should be or because that's simply how these decision makers are used to (or comfortable with) doing things.
Yeah, I've also noticed that sometimes replies don't show up in the inbox for threads with a bunch of replies. I think it automatically mutes replies after a certain number? Unsure, and unfortunately not likely something to be fixed anytime soon as we are not planning on updating our version of Lemmy anytime soon as we wish to migrate to another platform.