But the admins and mods also seem so very, very tired of all the BS that they have to wade through, that they aren’t all that receptive anymore. I sympathize.

There's a long history of text discussion forums where a sizable number of the users get up in arms like this, and it usually precedes people abandoning the forum. It happened on Slashdot, then Digg, and recently on Reddit.

The people who post the stories and write the comments create the forum and make it continue. I'm not trying to discount the hard, unappreciated work that mods and administrators do. But there seems to be this common misperception that because they do that hard, unappreciated work, it's okay for them to ignore the community when it speaks with a clear and cohesive voice that something is a problem. People have all kinds of options for where to spend their "typing on the internet" time, and it's pretty easy to switch.

Maybe it's because anyone who's in that moderation role is accustomed to dealing with people whining about nonsense, and a lot of members of the community making a big deal about stuff that doesn't matter, and so it's sometimes hard for them to recognize a valid concern that's widely shared by the community. I don't know. Like I say, I'm not trying to say I don't appreciate the unrewarding work of moderation. But "it's not that important" cuts both ways. If you treat your forum and the way people want it to be as a bunch of distracting noise, they're going decide you're a waste of time and go on their way, and once that reputation as a shit pile is solidly established about a particular forum, it tends to be permanent.

I've also provided Rooki with code to vastly improve the bot's verdicts. This just happened, so it's too soon to say anything about how he's reacting to that, but if months go by and nothing happens with it, or the party line which was "nothing better than MBFC exists, and anyway no one's offering constructive suggestions" changes to something else, without any change to the bot, then that'll be a clue.

I don't think it's proven that jordanlund is the one that's saying inaccurate things. jeffw said the exact same thing about being removed from his position if he tried to take away the bot, back when he was soliciting improvements for the bot for !news@lemmy.world, and jeffw is one of the only big-name .world mods who seems to have his head on straight. In the end, there was some kind of behind-the-scenes discussion and the bot was removed. It might have been nothing more complex than one admin who really liked the idea of the bot, and that coming across to the moderators who are "under him" as if trying to remove the bot would make him angry and he would remove them with his admin powers, when that wasn't the case, and it just took a direct conversation to get things straightened out and resolve the issue.

There is clearly something weird going on at lemmy.world. I just wouldn't jump to conclusions about where the weirdness lies without more information.

Also inside the uploaded source code was some GPL 2 source code, which renders the not-very-open WCL moot.

Wait a second. That casts the whole thing in a different light. They're now obligated to either stop distributing the thing in any form, or else open-source the entire thing whether they want to or not. Right?

I haven't played around with GPT o1; I just checked, and I don't have access. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad without having experienced it. But OpenAI has been getting steadily worse for a while, so I'm assuming that the stuff I've interacted with is indicative of the quality of the new stuff. It's all of a piece.

I've done something like this, with RSS feeds. Read !meta@rss.ponder.cat to see the existing communities, and how to add a feed to an existing community.

The concern about spam is real. A lot of these exist, for example one for Hacker News and a whole instance for Reddit, and a lot of people including myself don't like those. I agree with you that it's a good idea but it's necessary to be careful that it remains a useful seed of content and not an overwhelming spew.

A Trump win, on the other hand, could cause shocks. Transactional in his foreign policy outlook, Trump has long argued that the NATO alliance is a bad deal for the United States, and many of his advisers urge the U.S. to redirect its resources to competing with China. While full withdrawal from NATO is unlikely, a Trump administration could trim U.S. commitments to Europe’s defence, while boosting the morale of far-right European politicians working against a stronger, more integrated Europe.

This is outlandish sanewashing.

Let me try:

A Trump win, on the other hand, could cause an unmitigated global catastrophe unprecedented in modern history. Openly violent and depraved, Trump has long allied himself with several of the worst people in the world, notably including Vladimir Putin, and would do his best to destroy NATO completely while giving overt assistance to forces which are actively hostile to anything European. While full withdrawal from NATO is one possible outcome, the damage would be by no means limited to simple, predictable changes like that. Trump is so unhinged that there is virtually no economic, military, or diplomatic disaster that would be off the table, were he to win a second term.

It might not end the Gaza genocide. It will also not cure cancer, end climate change, or stop political violence in the United States. However, electing Harris will produce a hugely better outcome on all of those fronts than will electing Trump.

If you care about the Palestinian people, and you’re risking Trump getting into power again, you don’t actually care about the Palestinian people. You just enjoy grandstanding gestures, and while you’re making your gestures, you’re flirting with making their already horrifying situation absolutely infinitely worse.

You can use Creative Commons. You'll still have the copyright to the work, so you can relicense it or do whatever you like with it, but they'll have a particular and proscribed set of things they are guaranteed to be able to do with it into perpetuity.

Choose whichever license suits what you'd like to be able to grant them, in terms of whether they have to credit you for it, whether they're allowed to modify it, and so on. CC BY lets them do whatever they want, as long as they credit you, which is a common permissive option.

What are you talking about? I just tried two test queries on DDG, and neither one had LLM-generated nonsense, and the one that was in double-quotes returned only five results, all of which had the double-quoted phrase and one of which was the thing I was challenging it to find.

Can you give an example of a query where DDG returns LLM results or doesn't respect your double-quotes?

Nah. You have to follow your own style.

Bertrand Russel had his own style, and it's complete, formal, heartfelt and true. If he tried to add a bunch of cursing to it, it would become inauthentic, just as it would if someone whose natural mode is to start cursing and punching decided to try to talk like Bertrand Russel. Everyone's got their voice.

For an equally complete, formal, heartfelt and true example which does include cursing, see:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cleveland-browns-letters/

Claude.ai is quite a bit superior to GPT in my experience. That one, I pay for, and it seems like it's worth it.