Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
"We didn't vote for Google" says angry luddite who doesn't like his politicians using Google.
"We didn't vote for an iPhone" says angry luddite who doesn't like his politicians using iPhones.
This is such a silly argument. Politicians can and will use tools as they see fit during the course of their tenure.
Gonna have to heavily disagree with this take. Firstly, "Luddite" isn't the insult you seem to think it is - Luddites were pretty righteous people.
Second, and I think this is the most important thing, comparing a politician's use of Google, an iPhone and an LLM is a big fat false equivalence.
To some degree, searching with Google and using LLM can have the same issue: Google is serving up the results that can change your view on things, just like an LLM can. Difference is that with the Google results, you should be getting human created stuff and you could know their political views and take that into your research, whereas LLM is much more of a black box of what the answers are and how they have been influenced by the LLM creators.
I do agree that putting iPhone into this discussion is, at best, far fetched and could be said about any technology brand/model.
They are all tools people use to find and collate and present data. They do it in different ways, but they are all under the control of the user. If you find iPhones too distinct, then consider Google. Both Google and ChatGPT serve content determined by an opaque algorithm. The content may or may not be real. Some of it is completely false. It is up to the user to make an informed determination themselves.
The difference is that a search engine result (before they started adding LLM results) will give you individual articles and pages with the information you're looking up. You will get a lot of fake results, and sponsored articles that push certain viewpoints or agendas, but in theory you can find the sources for that information on those pages (I say in theory because not every article will list where the information was sourced from, but at the very least you can find the author's name in most cases).
For the results from an LLM, you get an amalgamation of all that data spit out in a mix of verified and fake information altogether. It can hallucinate information, report fabrications as facts, and miss the context of what you're asking entirely. (Yes, a search result can miss what you're asking as well, but it's usually more immediately evident). Depending on how it's used, the longer the session goes on the more likely the information is going to be tailored to what it expects you want it to provide. If used simply for "what is the current exchange rate between country A and country B", you might get the wrong answer but it probably is an isolated mistake.
If you start asking it for a second opinion, for it to appraise what you are saying and give you feedback, you'll start to get answers further and further from impartiality and more and more in line with mimicking your own pattern of thinking.
I don't agree with your delineation. Both LLMs and Google serve a mix of verified and fake information altogether. Both "hallucinate" information. Much of what Google serves now is actually created by LLMs. Both serve fabrications as facts and miss the context of what one is "asking" entirely. Both serve content which is created by humans and generated by LLMs, and they don't provide any way to tell the difference.
Before the advent of LLMs it was a different playground. I agree that now it has poisoned search engines as well, but there are non-Google search engines that are slightly better at filtering those sorts of results.
I think it is an important distinction, still. A search engine will list a variety of results that you can select which ones you trust. It gives you more control over the information you ultimately ingest, allowing you to avoid sources you don't trust.
If you use LLMs in conjunction with other tools, then it is just another tool in your toolbox and these downsides can be mitigated, I suppose. If you rely entirely on the LLM, though, it only compounds.
I think I broadly agree. Both can provide a list of sources and citations if used correctly. Both can be used to find poor quality data. It is up to the user to use their judgement to consume reputable and valid information.
Remember when Merkel used an iphone and then it turned out the americans were spying on her for industrial intelligence purposes?
Of course I don't fucking want politicians to use a machine from a company directly linked with surveillance scandal, I'm not fucking stupid.
Okay that's an argument I can buy. Any tools used for statecraft should be properly security vetted.