🎻

Using a multi-method approach, we observed 100 Turkish psychologists’ Instagram practices over 6 months and conducted 20 semi-structured interviews. Findings reveal that Instagram has become an unexpected intermediary in the labor market for psychologists, intensifying to fulfill the three pillars of influencer creep: self-branding, optimization, and authenticity. Psychologists now strategically use the platform as a “visual curriculum vitae,” leveraging its affordances to craft micro-selling points for their self-brand. These efforts also involve negotiating with algorithms, constant optimization efforts, and projecting themselves authentically by trying not to compromise their professional demeanor. Based on these findings, we contend that influencer creep not only alters individual professional practices but also reconfigures the profession itself through four interrelated changes: (a) the expansion of audiences, shifting from small-scale, localized clients to large, mass followings; (b) the redefinition of traditional markers of expertise, where institutional credentials are increasingly replaced by platform-driven metrics; © the alteration of traditional gatekeeping structures, as algorithmic systems take on a more prominent role in determining professional recognition and influence; and (d) requiring a new set of skills such as content creation and algorithmic proficiency, often overshadowing conventional professional competencies.

🤡

delete facebook

oof

A “Evolution”

You could argue that the URLs are not wrong, but that the error is committed by the reader in expecting the output to somehow be based in reality.

I could roll a dice to generate a URL and then say “but it’s a wrong URL!” I don’t think many people would blame the dice.

LLMs only output fan-fiction of our reality.

J. K. Rowling is a transphobe and a bigot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic

What about an independent regulator for parliamentary ethics?

Fuck Palantir.

Also, “A Wizard of Earthsea” by Ursula Le Guin.

“I want you to rebuild everything around my nerds”.

Where my nerds at!?

I don’t think this is really a very good allegory. The author has written 835 words and only managed to express that:

• blue food tastes kind of weird
• they’re putting it in everything
• they’re putting up the prices of blue food
• you can’t get normal food even if you want it

It’s not surprising to me that some people didn’t get that it was about AI.

The allegory would work better if:

• production of blue food colouring took so much energy that they were bringing coal power plants back online and exacerbating climate change
• in order to design the blue food colouring, they had to steal every person’s recipe books without permission and regardless of how private that information might be to the owner
• the blue food colouring could spontaneously make a food taste almost like someone’s personal family recipe without their permission
• foods containing the blue food colouring completely lack any expected nutritional content, and when a blue food does contain nutrition it’s just a random accident of the process
• scientific studies of people eating exclusively blue foods show that not only are they malnourished, but their body can no longer process normal foods as efficiently as before.

To make these points, I think the metaphor needs to be something a little bit more complex than “blue food colouring.” Perhaps food made by a food replicator would make for a better example.

The wiggly line means AC but the wiggly line with straight line above it means both AC and DC.

I will describe how it works and the ethics of such a tool.

Where in this post do you describe the ethics of such a tool?

non-technical users believe that their votes are private, which is far from the truth. This attitude could potentially lead to harassment of Lemmings (yes, that’s what we Lemmy users call ourselves) for upvoting a particular post. Lemvotes makes it clear that votes are not private, which could help bring a more accurate picture of the way votes work on Lemmy to its users.

This is what needs discussion. It is this tool which will lead to harassment due to the way someone votes. And the threat or spectre of harassment will lead to the Chilling Effect, ie. self-censorship (of voting) to avoid harassment.

The chilling effect this causes will make communities even more like echo-chambers, as dissent will be pre-emptively squashed.

Without a tool like this existing, people have to go out of their way to find out this information (setting up their own instance, or finding someone who already does this surreptitiously). By making such a tool available to the lemmy community at large, you make it extremely easy for anyone to do this, and so the chance of harassment occurring is much higher.

You might think you’re being clever, or on some kind of crusade to educate the uneducated. But actually your actions are making this (community-built) platform worse. Compare your actions to releasing a 0-day exploit for a security vulnerability instead of responsibly disclosing. It doesn’t help, it just causes chaos until the people who do the actual work can figure out a solution.

Think about how your tool existing now changes the dynamic of Lemmy as a whole. Is it better, or worse? How would you actually solve this problem in Lemmy, instead of exploiting it?

The EU is weak, divided, and geostrategically boxed in

lol ok

Hard Hard Disk