Casual Conversation

2282 readers

152 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.

RULES (updated 01/22/25)

Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

112

AI is ruining my online experience (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It was all fun and games two years ago when most AI videos were obvious (6 fingers, 7 fingers, etc.).

But things are getting out of hand. I am at a point I'm questioning if Lemmy, Reddit, Youtube comments etc. are even real. I wouldn't even be suprised if I was playing Overwatch 5v5 with 9 AIs while three of them are programmed to act like kids, 4 being non toxic etc..

This whole place could just be an illusion.

I can't prove it. Its really less fun now.

The upside is I go to the gym more frequently and just hang out with people I know are 100% real. Nothing worse than having a conversation with AI person. It was just an average 7/10 like I am an average 5/10 so I thought it could be a real thing but turned out I was chatting with AI. A 7/10 AI. The creator made the person less perfect looking to make it more realistic.

Nice. What is the point of internet when everything is fake but can't even or only be identified as fake with deep research.

I'm 32 and I know many young people who also hate it. To be fair I only know people who hate on AI nowadays. This has to end.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thanks anyways. I guess it's just a hard problem to tackle. With freedom comes the freedom to abuse it. And yes, the internet has been designed to be very agnostic about what it'll get used for. I think it's a super impressive invention. And it's very successful if we measure that by looking at how omnipresent it is now. And I'm even more impressed if I look at the age of the protocols and the design that powers the foundation of it, to this date. A lot of it has been adopted around 50 years ago. And the particular design choices scale so well, they pretty much still power an entirely different world 50 years later. I don't think it's humanly possible to do a substantially better job at something... But yeah, that doesn't take away from other things and consequences. I'm often a fan of the analogy with tools. The internet is a tool, and very much like a hammer that can be used to help build a house, or tear it down... It's not exactly the tool's fault for what it gets used for. I'm now getting really out of line for this community, so I'll try to make it short: I think abstraction is a very elemental design choice and what makes the internet great. The lower layers transport arbitrary stuff and that's what allowed us to build phones, watch TV over it... Things nobody envisioned half a century ago. We'd completely cripple it in that regard, by removing that abstraction between the layers. And that's what makes me think it can't be the internet (as in the transport layers) where we bake ethics into. It has to happen at the top, where things get applied and the individual platforms and services reside.

I'm sorry, it's way more complicated than that and more a topic for a long essay, and lots of it wouldn't be very "casual" to read, as you said. I don't think it's a sad story, though. It's just one taking place in the real world, where things are intertwined, have consequence and things often turn out in a way no-one anticipated. It's just complex and the world is a varied place. And this is highly political. I agree.