World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
While it might seem that the Russian population could disconnect under such dire circumstances, history shows that Russians have the capacity to rise against oppressive conditions imposed by their own government. The Russian Revolution of 1917 is a prime example. Amidst widespread dissatisfaction with the Tsarist regime due to economic hardship, military failures, and political repression, the Russian people ultimately overthrew a centuries-old monarchy.
Similarly, the protests and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s highlight the power of their collective action. The combination of economic stagnation, political corruption, and a desire for greater freedoms led to mass demonstrations that ultimately brought down the regime.
These historical precedents suggest that while disconnection and passivity are possible; they are by no means guaranteed. When the consequences of government actions become too severe—whether through economic hardship, loss of life, or a perceived betrayal of public trust—the Russian populace has shown that it can indeed mobilize to demand change.
Poor Russians though, it always got marginally better at best, and then it got worse again... Hope their next change is around the corner and is longer lasting.
But why? I think it's because Russians just don't exhibit a lot of civic engagement. When you see the kinds of things Putin did to get into power, do you think any of those actions would slide in any other well-functioning liberal democracies? Just look at how Ukraine responded during Euromaidan. You just don't see that kind of engagement happening in Russian society.
So why does it keep getting worse again? Unfortunately, it's because they let it.
The last sentence in every chapter of the Russian history book:
Not sure if LLM text or real effort, but if the latter - thank you. I think you're right on all historical points and the conclusion. I think in the current status quo things are just nowhere near as dire for the average Russian as they were during the examples you gave. The economy is doing well for individuals and most probably won't see war up close even with Ukraine's incursion. Could be wrong.
This is indeed correct. No need for LLM's as there are plenty of Russians on lemmy who can just tell. As one myself, I can tell you, it's still mostly business as usual. Kursk incursion sparked less bang than, say, the Orenburg flooding or Krokus shooting. Economically speaking, the inflation is fucking insane, everything jumped about 2X in the last couple of years. Though still somewhat manageable as society is undergoing a major shift where some salaries, particularly those related to military complex have jumped even more than that, while others remained the same, which put many people way below poverty line. There isn't really a deficit in anything, some things, like coca cola, were replaced by locally sourced substitutes, while in other cases, if you've got money, there's always gray imports - e.g. I'm getting my monster cans smuggled from Poland at X4 the usual price. Surprisingly, some good things came out of it, too - I freaking love SBP. Visa and Mastercard can suck a big one. As for coffins on coffins, none of my direct friends or relatives went voluntarily or got drafted. The ones who stayed surprisingly got extremely desensitized of the whole situation, seemingly turning to support the regime, or at least so in public. A couple of relatives of a spouse of a relative went in for the money. As far as I'm aware, both are alive, one is fighting right now, and the other returned, already spent it all, and now considers going back again for a round two. All in all, compared to the state of things before past revolutions, as I read about them, not even Ukraine is at that point yet, much less so for Russia.
Full disclosure, the text is my own but some of the historical references were summarized through LMM and copy/pasted.
While Russia has avoided a complete economic collapse, the average Russian is facing a harsher economic environment with higher costs, reduced income, and fewer consumer options.
The long-term impacts of these sanctions and economic adjustments are still unfolding, but they have undeniably made daily life more difficult for many in Russia.
Has it reached a point that matches the historical instabilities that fostered revolutionary action in the past? No; but I do think the potential exists if the current sanctions and poor battlefield performance continue.
Two things are very hard to deny, even with heavy-handed propaganda: the cost of bread & loved ones returning home in coffins.
I would very much prefer if the use of LLMs would be disclosed in messages.
Understandable if the comment is entirely LMM generated, but to imply I should post a disclaimer every time one is used for summarizing content is a bit of a reach IMHO.
LMMs are a tool to be used, like anything else.
Summarising is one specific use of llms that doesn't actually work.
Strange how it seems to work for me…
I know precisely what I want to say, I’m just asking for the information to be condensed into a concise 1-2 sentence statement.
There’s a big difference in asking it to generate something wholesale vs. feeding it information and asking for that information to be summarized in a clean and easy to understand format.
I would argue that is the best way to use LLMs; it’s basically acting as an editor.
Meaning they could be utter bullshit like a lot of what comes out of LLMs.
In this instance it’s accurate
Then OP should have found a way to present it so that people could more easily verify it and not just expect us all to trust software which constantly lies.
It’s not a 14 page paper, it’s two references to widely known historical events. I feel like I’m going insane…
Prompt: In 1-2 sentences, summarize the Russian revolution”s impact on social unrest.
Responses: Amidst widespread dissatisfaction with the Tsarist regime due to economic hardship, military failures, and political repression, the Russian people ultimately overthrew a centuries-old monarchy.
I’m not saying “create me a story about Russian people revolting”. I’m taking an event I’m already aware of and asking for it to get boiled down to a simple statement.
I would know if it’s lying because I paid attention in high school and college & I know what the Russian revolution is.
This is being blown way out of proportion because people see “LLM” and freak out. I use LLMs constantly in my day to day life for shit like this (and I’m not going to stop). I also feed it things I’ve written and ask it to check grammar and tighten it up. The LLM isn’t “creating” anything in those cases either, it’s just making things easier to read/understand; acting as an editor.
Sorry if that scares you.
It doesn't scare me. I just see no reason to trust LLMs after all the lies. There are plenty of legitimate sources that could be quoted.
A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924.
Orlando Figes, 1998
Go read it and tell me what you learn; happy?
Believe it or not, there is a huge gulf between "paste what a lying sentence construction machine says" and "require people to go to the right library."
But of course, that would require you to be arguing in good faith.
Lmao, we aren’t talking about some obscure, niche topic. You asked for a source and I gave you one…
Stop moving the goalposts; if anyone is arguing in bad faith it’s you my friend.
Google “russian revolution 1917” and read the first academic article you see. Your lack of research is not my responsibility…
I never moved the goalposts. If you can't figure out how to paste text from and then link to a couple of websites on the subject or even Wikipedia and thus rely on the thing that tells people to put glue on pizza, don't be surprised if you're criticized for it.
I’m perfectly capable of pasting a link to a website; I chose to use a source from a book I read in college and is sitting on a shelf at my house.
I’m not obligated to do a Google search for you.
And again, the LLM isn’t doing my research for me; it’s summarizing an event that I’m already aware of.
I'm afraid you don't understand how the burden of proof works. I'd give you an easy link to understand it, but someone told me recently, "I'm not obligated to do a Google search for you."
If you can’t be bothered to spend 5 mins looking something up then you’re welcome to believe whatever you want.
This isn’t a court case, we’re having a conversation in an Internet forum. What you’re calling a “burden of proof”, I’m choosing to call intellectual laziness.
Now that's some irony from someone who gets sentence-construction software to write posts on their behalf.
Are you incapable of grasping that the LLM wrote a total of like 3 sentences in a 3 paragraph comment?
And yea, the fact that you can’t seem to google 3 words and read a couple articles instead of being purposefully obtuse reeks of intellectual laziness.
Sorry, not sorry.
"I wasn't being lazy because I only used the lie machine a little bit."
Gotcha.
So you don’t have an actual argument, you’re just going to prop up the LLM strawman instead?
Is what I said wrong? Or are your feelings hurt because I used a tool to summarize something?
You are now flagrantly violating our incivility rule. If you wish to continue this discussion, do not violate it again. If you do not wish to continue it, that is fine.
Lmao, what authority do you hold?
So, calling out blatant logical fallacies is not being civil?
Ok buddy, you do you…
The authority of my being a moderator in this community.
This was the uncivil part:
Please read the rules in the sidebar. Specifically, rule 5.
And that’s different from this in what way?
-"I wasn't being lazy because I only used the lie machine a little bit."
Practice what you preach.
That would have been after you had called me lazy, would it not? I was pointing out that you were doing what you were calling me. It was demonstrative.
Do you think it is wise to continue down this hostile path with me? I think you would do best to walk away before you do something you shouldn't.
Your argument is intellectually lazy, I stand by what I said.
I’m only mirroring your attitude friend, ban me if you want. Plenty of other places I can take my opinion. You would think as a mod you would want to foster participation in the community, and not get hung up on something so petty.
You came at me aggressively off the bat; if you can’t admit that, then we aren’t ever going to see eye to eye.
Screenshotting this whole thread.
I don't plan on banning you. But I will delete any further posts that violate the civility rule.
I never even suggested I would ban you.
I find it extremely difficult to believe two events over 70 years apart that I know are very different in many ways could ultimately have the same underlying cause.
And as you haven't actually made a point, just asserted they do, there's no reason to believe they do. LLM or not
I don’t know what to tell you. You can pretty easily look up the agreed upon causes of two pretty impactful and well known historical events. We aren’t talking about some small conflict in some small village in sub-Saharan Africa; the events in question are the Russian revolution and fall of the Soviet Union.
I’m sure you can find dissenting opinions, but what I commented is largely agreed upon.
Had I not been honest about using LLMs to summarize a few sentences, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. If you want to play devils advocate, provide a differing opinion. Your only hang up seems to be that I used a LLM in any capacity.
I’m not even saying it’s the only cause, just that it contributed…