throwaway115

Congrats! What has it been like developing on the AVP?

I don't want that, but I see your point. I would rather our population have a healthy immune system where bad ideas just don't survive, than to have us live as Bubble Boy, cut off from the rest of the world forever.

Where can I read about the constitutional rights of "the social organism"?

>We take away your freedom and put you in jail.

The ACLU has defended literal neo-Nazis and white supremacists right to rally and share their ideas on several occasions. Sounds like you would disagree with them, and that people should be imprisoned for having disgusting and hateful ideas. Fortunately, you're wrong.

Don't conflate words with actions like hurting someone. There are very narrow restrictions on speech, mostly around calls or threats of imminent violence. But those are extremely rare cases, and they're not what you are broadly describing.

>I would be delighted to read about opposing opinions, provided they are presented + supported by provable facts.

Opinion

  a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

You're being hyperbolic. Community Notes on X are an example of these tools, and they are not ignored or distrusted from what I've seen. If your tools are poor, make better tools. But also, as a first principle, accept that some people won't believe what you want them to believe, no matter what. That doesn't mean you get to start trying to control them, because you got frustrated.

So then you need to come to terms with people rejecting what you want them to believe. Some people won't believe you no matter what. Does that mean you get to reach for another tool, like force, or censorship? No, it means you need to accept that you don't control people.

"How do we stop people from sharing (what I deem to be) fake news?" is the wrong question. The right question is "How do we give people the tools to identify fake news?" If you give people the tools and they still spread what you deem to be fake news, then you've done what you can. Tough cookies for you.

Too many people get very angry that people share things they disagree with, and then start talking about clamping down on communication. No, sorry, but your ideas lost. People are allowed to think and share things that make you angry. If your views aren't mainstream, there's a reason for that. "Fake news" is only a tiny part of the equation. If you pick up that censorship weapon, that we all implicitly agree to not use, you will not be the last to wield it.

Since we're making silly comparisons, charitable organizations also give things away for "free", making the recipients somewhat dependent on them. There's plenty to criticize OpenAI about, but why associate them with drug pushers?

There's just too many people in tech, because tech needs too many people. Once we have better tools to reduce complexity and allow teams to be much much smaller, many of these problems will vanish, because a engineering team will consist of 1-3 wizard engineers who control all aspects of the tech. We simply do not need to have teams as big as they are, for what we're ultimately doing.

I've implemented a very similar RAG hybrid solution, and it has improved LLM responses enormously. There are other things you can do too that have huge improvements, like destructuring your data and placing it into a graph structure, with queryable edge relationships. I think we're just scratching the surface.

Can you not evaluate the contents of an article on their own merit, without first biasing yourself for or against the author? Of everything the article mentions, you seem to think it being on a "conservative platform" is the most noteworthy.

What's your own political tilt, so that I can "just note" it?