If you’re talking about the distillations, AFAIK they take somebody else’s model and run it through their (actually open-source) distiller. I tried a couple of those models because I was curious. The distilled Qwen model is cagey about Tianmen Square, but Qwen was made by Alibaba. The distillation of a US-made model did not have this problem.

(Edit: we’re talking about these distillations, right? If somebody else ran a test and posted it online, I’m not privy to it.)

I don’t have enough RAM to run the full DeepSeek R1, but AFAIK it doesn’t have this problem. Maybe it does.

In case it isn’t clear, BTW, I do despise LLMs and AI in general. The biggest issue with their lies (leaving aside every other issue with them for a moment) isn’t the glaringly obvious stuff. Not Tianmen Square, and certainly not the “it’s woke!” complaints about generating images of black founding fathers. The worst lies are the subtle and insidious little details like agreeableness - trying to get people to spend a little more time with them, which apparently turns once-reasonable people into members of micro-cults. Like cults, perhaps, spme skeptics think they can join in and not fall for the BS… And then they do.

All four students had by now joined their chosen groups… Hugh had completely disappeared into a nine-week Arica training seminar; he was incommunicado and had mumbled something before he left about “how my energy has moved beyond academia.”

What exactly makes this more “open source” than DeepSeek? The linked page doesn’t make that particularly clear.

DeepSeek doesn’t release their training data (but they release a hell of a lot of other stuff), and I think that’s about as “open” as these companies can get before they risk running afoul of copyright issues. Since you can’t compile the model from scratch, it’s not really open source. It’s just freeware. But that’s true for both models, as far as I can tell.

DeepSeek imposes similar restrictions, but only on their website. You can self-host and then enjoy relatively truthful (as truthful as a bullshit generator can be) answers about both Tianmen Square, Palestine, and South Africa (something American-made bullshit generators apparently like making up, to appease their corporate overlords or conspiracy theorists respectively).

Sponsored, using affiliate links and accepting donations? Somebody better fork this guide before the GitHub gets yanked

Edit: Okay, after looking around at this, something seems… off. Linking to getoffpocket.com?by=lemmy was odd already, but then I noticed that every single service here appears to have a referral link. Even the OneNote link has a referral code stapled onto it:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/onenote/digital-note-taking-app?rby=getoffpocket.com%2Fproprietary%2Fmicrosoft-onenote%2F

For some reason, those same UTM links are used for everything, including links to GitHub?
How about no extra query parameters at all?

I’m also surprised there’s not even a passing mention to Obsidian and Evernote.

I think I’ll stick to searching out my own recs on AlternativeTo

You could have just said I wasn’t wrong about your intentions.

I know it’s a 90% chance you don’t care how Mozilla wastes its money and are just looking for an excuse to dismiss that one.

But maybe I’m wrong.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/germ-network_we-went-back-to-convex-to-co-host-our-second-activity-7317934307501662210-UQBz

That Steve Teixeira guy seems all right. He successfully lead profitable division and fought against his employees getting laid off …aaaand he’s laid off too.

Only after I make sure they’re legit by running them through FakeSpot NFT Guard.

Network TV still has a huge benefit: it’s not capable of watching you.

(Not accounting for the smart TVs, which are basically the only kind of TV you can buy now.)

Today [October 28, 2024] Germ announces pre-seed funding from investors K5 Global via partner Daniel Marcotte, Mozilla Ventures, Gaingels, and angel investors including Nick Sullivan, Jessica Millstone of Copper Wire Ventures, and Adam Sah.

https://www.germnetwork.com/blog/germ-announces-pre-seed-funding

Makes sense to me that streaming would get worse only after it managed to capture that market.

We can cross that bridge when we get to it. In the mean time, we have alternatives. Even in a worst case scenario, Mozilla can coast for a while without more Google bucks.

Spotify has flooded its own playlists with trash too. If you’re aiming at the rot, you’ve got to deal with the platform next.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/your-spotify-playlists-are-probably-filled-with-ghost-artists/

It’s pretty tone-deaf to criticize layoffs on the same article that acknowledges their historic dependence on Google’s rapidly collapsing monopoly. Where is the money going to come from?

If you scroll up, you’ll see the part of the article that mentions Mozilla wasting tens of millions of dollars on AI.

Where do you think that money comes from?

$200 million doesn’t cover the first billion in losses OpenAI inflicts upon itself, but I’m not a fan of this bailout regardless.

If you want deleted posts to have accessible comment sections after they’ve been deleted… Talk to the Lemmy developers!

@WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works please update your link

Touché.

The author responded to this response. You can see that here.

https://blog.cyrneko.eu/matrix-is-cooked

(This looks the same until you scroll down; you linked to a differen,t older version of the site that did not update the linked post)

I don’t like this article or this author’s conclusions. They answer the question “is internet content too engaging?” with “no, and besides, won’t you think of the free market?”

This article is unfortunate evidence that powerful groups who are critical of social media tend to be against the concept of free will itself (hello, Amy Coney Barrett), while powerful people who run social media are against the concept of reducing harm on their platforms at all.

A report by the American Psychological Association states that “using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people.”

Uh huh.

Meta’s internal research that prompted concern about the effect of Instagram on teenage girls actually found that most users reported Instagram either had no impact or made things better.

ACCORDING TO FUCKING FACEBOOK.

…proponents of “addictive design” theories misunderstand the impact that regulation and liability will have on media competition. In a world where content is abundant and attention is scarce, platforms that manage to reach a critical mass of users compete not just on size but also on curation quality…

TikTok provides a good example. TikTok didn’t overtake established platforms like YouTube by having more users or more content; it succeeded by creating a better algorithm that more effectively curated content to individual preferences.

Again, doubt. Sure, the free market provided a more addictive alternative to an already addictive product. It resembles a slot machine more than the previous version.

I have no idea how the author thinks this is a slam dunk in their favor, when it’s clearly the opposite.