• 7 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle


  • The mod has been consistently going since 2005, so they’ve had a lot of time to build up assets! There’s a lot of snazzy new features, but everything still aims to integrate with Freelancer’s original setting and lore. Mixed success, but it works more often than not. There’s a community Discord if you wanted to take a look around or ask questions.










  • GeneralRetreat@beehaw.orgtoBeehaw Support@beehaw.orgThe rules for bots
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’d just suggest that this is a defacto ban based on the current requirements.

    If bots are going to be command triggered and require pre-approval by individual community moderators, I think it would be prudent to include an index of registered bots + commands in the community info pages.

    Currently I can’t think of any reasonable way for a Beehaw user to know which bots are operational and what their commands are. If bots need to be command triggered but there’s no way to find out which ones are functional, why approve them to begin with?










  • Bots can be extremely useful and the flexibility of where and how bots could work was one of the things that made Reddit popular. Before, well, y’know.

    Bespoke bots can also allow particular communities to develop local features or functionality. I assume Lemmy’s mod tools are fair bare bones right now too, so I suspect someone, somewhere is probably working on an automod toolkit.

    Bots should be allowed, but must be flagged. I don’t know if it’s a default lemmy option, but the app I use has a toggle to hide bot accounts if you don’t want to see them.

    That said, I would very much prefer if bots were restricted to just making comments rather than posts. Certain communities have bots that automatically post article links and they completely blanket feeds sorted by new until you block the account.





  • since C2PA relies on creators to opt in, the protocol doesn’t really address the problem of bad actors using AI-generated content. And it’s not yet clear just how helpful the provision of metadata will be when it comes to media fluency of the public. Provenance labels do not necessarily mention whether the content is true or accurate.

    Interesting approach, but I can’t help but feel the actual utility is fairly limited. For example, I could see it being useful for large corporate creative studios that have contractual / union agreements that govern AI content usage.

    If they’re using enterprise tools that build in C2PA, it’d give them a metadata audit trail showing exactly when and where AI was used.

    That’s completely useless in the context where AI content flagging is most useful though. As the quote says, this provenance data is applied at the point of creation, and in a world where there are open source branches of generation models, there’s no way to ensure provenance tagging is built in.

    This technology is most needed to combat AI powered misinformation campaigns, when that is the use case this is least able to address.