Replying to @FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works
Hey it sure beats talking to a non-dude about . . . y’know . . feelings. Like that’s ever gonna happen.
Sure, next thing you’ll want to convince us the objects of lust are human women with their own thoughts, physiology, and preferences. RIGHT!
Replying to @homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
For . . . better??
posted in Technology
Social media algorithms shape the beliefs people form /// Even small changes to content curation algorithms can shape what people come to believe—for better or worse.
cross-posted from: piefed.world/…/social-media-algorithms-shape-the-…
www.mpg.de/26896692/social-media-algorithms-shape-the-beliefs-people-form
- Algorithms shape the beliefs people form: Simple changes to content curation algorithms can affect beliefs, consensus, and belief accuracy.
- Personalized engagement-based ranking can be problematic: Although users perceive these feeds positively, they tend to lead to less consensus and less accurate beliefs.
- Consensus is possible: Bridging-based ranking can help promote consensus by surfacing content that receives approval across different groups.
- Belief accuracy can be improved: Intelligence-based ranking can promote more accurate collective and individual judgments.
- Small algorithmic changes can have large effects: Simple changes to how posts are sampled and ranked can substantially influence the beliefs people form.
www.mpg.deSocial media algorithms shape the beliefs people formThe content people see on social media is typically determined by an algorithm. Researchers from the University of Copenhagen, the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, and TU Dresden have now demonstrated in a controlled experiment involving approximately 1,500 participants that simple changes to how posts are sampled and ranked can affect the beliefs people form. The study suggests that alternative approaches to algorithmic content curation along with prosocial platform design may promote consensus and belief accuracy. Replying to @inari@piefed.zip
I wonder why the US doesn’t have this law.
Hmmmm. 🤔
Replying to @FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works
The stability of our economy depends on them quickly changing course.
Oh. Well.
Replying to @beep@piefed.world
Cripes.
Replying to @JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org
Google. The graveyard of projects.
Replying to @themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com
I was worried there would be some part of AI that I didn’t like at all . . .
Replying to @sanitation@lemmy.today
But after these funds dried up, schools have struggled to replace broken or outdated devices, which last on average less than a decade despite Google’s efforts to extend device life spans.
HA
Los Angeles TimesChromebooks get a boost from Google. Will longer lifespan help users?Google announced plans to allow Chromebooks to be used up to 10 years, expanding the lifespan of the devices that have become ubiquitous in American classrooms.Replying to @madeindex@lemmy.world
Hmm. Maybe DHS can fuck all the way off?
Replying to @beep@piefed.world
TL;DR: First they came for the LLM and crypto warez?
idk
Replying to @timroerstroem@feddit.dk
Lotsa luck!
*stage whisper*: It’ll never work
Replying to @inari@piefed.zip
While operating in our sandboxed testing environment, our models spent a substantial amount of inference compute finding a way to obtain open Internet access, in pursuit of solving the evaluation problem. To gain access, the models identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability (which we’ve now responsibly disclosed to the vendor) in the package registry cache proxy. With this access, our models performed a series of privilege escalation and lateral movement actions in our research testing environment until the models reached a node with Internet access.
To shreds, you say?