The organisation, after Musk took over, became a cesspit of far-right extremism, in which anything the far-right "disagreed" with (such as facts and other inconveniences) were censored.

The EFF has, by this announcement, basically said that censorship did not bother them at all, that extremism did not bother them at all, that death threats against the left didn't bother them, that the only thing they were bothered by was the fact that the intellectuals had all left.

That does not give me overwhelming confidence in the EFF as being concerned with freedom.

Yeah, the privacy aspect of EFF doesn't align with social media in general IMHO.

Are they trying to "earn" some $ from social media? That's a silly goal, but might be a nice side benefit.

It's worse than that, because with proper skill, it isn't even a copy/pasta. It is one app that posts to everything all at once. Even the social media places that didn't make the list.

  Buffer, Hootsuite, Metricool, Robopost or Later ... just off the top of my head.

One could probably tweak posts for each platform with AI effectively.

Here is the list they are staying with ...

  Bluesky, Mastodon, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube

So, where did the audience go? It didn't go to the existing places from 20-8 years ago. And I doubt it went to the two new kids.

What this tells me is that their audience is aging/dying off, and the younger generations aren't there in numbers. This requires little to no political inferences to understand. It is easy to mistake one for the other.

Yes, I am a Boomer. I don't rely upon AI to tell me what to think. I am also a Libertarian and interested in Privacy and been a long time proponent of Open Source. Maybe figure out what intersections to the younger generations align and go there.

With their new Mythos model they can take Pentagon down, that's what I hear anyway. Maybe Pentagon needs to be taken down as well as the rest of the regime and all of the regimes.

Which it was.

Since pertinent information was withheld (that it didn't know), then by your own post you acknowledge it was a lie of omission.

The stupidity of people these days is truly beyond belief. And, yes, get the f off my lawn.

We learned back in the 80s that trying to get a neural net to emphasise what you want is actually very difficult. What it will tend to emphasise are the assumptions that underly the test data, and that's usually a completely different sort of fiction.

But was that figure provided by AI?

Even if not, we all know that 793% of all statistics are invented.

If something is inaccurately presented as being the truth, then it is a lie of omission because it is dishonest about the fact that the information isn't actually known.

Gemini is exceptionally bad, as LLMs go. I really have no idea why it is so dreadful, even compared to other LLMs. It isn't context window. and it doesn't seem to be training material either.

Cyber Implications have been noted. Mondas security is to be Cyber Vibed until we have Cyber Security capable of defeating The Doctor.

When I test the different AI systems, Google's AI system loses track of complex problems incredibly quickly. It's great on simple stuff, but for complex stuff, it's useless.

Unfortunately.... advice, overviews, etc, are very very complex problems indeed, which means that you're hitting the weakspot of their system.

I'm pressing 'X' to doubt. What make/model of router? I'll look up an image of the box.

I've designed a few machines - some rather more insane than others - in meticulous detail using AI. What I have not done, so far, is get an engineer to review the designs to see if any of them can be turned into something that would be usable. My suspicion is that a few might be made workable, but that has to be verified.

Having said that, producing the design probably took a significant amount of compute power and a significant amount of water. If I'd fermented that same quantity of water and provided wine to an engineering team that cost the same as the computing resources consumed, I'd probably have better designs.But, that too, is unverified. As before, it's perfectly verifiable, it just hasn't been so far.

If an engineer looks at the design and dies laughing, then I'm probably liable for funeral costs but at least there would be absolutely no question as to how good AI is at challenging engineering concepts. On the other hand, if they pause and say that there's actually a neat idea in a few of the concepts, then it becomes a question of how much of that was ideas I put in and how much is stuff the AI actually put together. Again, though, we'd have a metric.

That, to me, is the crux. It's all fine and well arguing over whether AI is any good or not (and, tbh, I would say that my feeling is that you're absolutely right), but this should be definitively measured and quantified, not assumed. There may be far better benchmarks than the designs I have - I'm good but I'm not one of the greats, so the odds of someone coming up with better measures seems high. But we're not seeing those, we're just seeing toy tests by journalists and that's not a good measure of real-world usability.

If no such benchmark values actually appear, then I think it's fair to argue that it's because nobody believes any AI out there is going to do well at them.

(I can tell you now, Gemini won't. Gemini is next to useless -- but on the Other Side.)