- We don’t do hashtags here
- Don’t use footnotes for hyperlinks when
[this syntax] (https://example.com/)is available
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
2 points (75.0% liked)
AI Infosec
771 readers
1 users here now
Infosec news and articles related to AI.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I added the hashtag to give the post more visibility on the fediverse. (and to give a little bit more visibility of Lemmy to the people on the mastodon side of the fediverse).
I didn't know anout the ability to add URLs inside the post.
but in general I avoid putting URLs inside the message post. Putting the URL at the end of a post allows people to first read the complete post and then follow the links. People tend to click on the link and get "stuck" there and not read the rest of the post. (especially on social-media platforms like youtube that is designed to lock people's attention as long as possible).
Guess what, there is syntax for footnotes[^1] now.
[^1]: GitHub reference on footnotes in Markdown
The web UI supports them but most apps don't (yet). Use at your own risk.
Hashtagging just makes it look like you're spamming all platforms and not knowing which platform supports them.
HI Simon,
Hum. Spamming? It's only 2 tags, so I think I am quite modest in my use of tags :-)
I look at this from the fediverse perspective. As I see it, hashtags and guppe groups are the non-threaded-fediverse equivalent to lemmy communities/kbin magazines: a grouping of posts per topic.
As to many people on mastodon still only know mastodon and do not know of the other services on the fediverse. So I think a small cross-post from time to time from lemmy towards mastodon/fediverse might not be a bad thing to create a little bit of awareness about the service.
Spamming = using something to post the exact same content on many platforms. Normally bots use tags on platforms that don't have hashtags (eg on reddit or lemmy), you effectively make yourself look like one.
I don't know who's behind these videos. What I can tell you, as someone involved in AI research, is that the information is factual, but it's presented in a way that makes it sound a lot scarier than it actually is.
Hi,I I agree there is truth in these statements, but -as said- the tone is way more menacing then the reality.
I wonder why anybody is spending all this time and effort (and hence money) to produce this kind of content.
what is the goal? Scare people? Create uncertainty and fear?
What does strike me it that is talks about US companies, but does not say anything about companies from the rest of the world or state-driven projects.
So, hence also my question, is this a new fenomina (with the rise of ChatGPT?) or has this existed for long?
Kr.
Probably some dude just trying to make a living. Just like how Facebook isn't out there looking to sow chaos and subvert democracy, but it just so happens that content contributing to this gets more engagement and more income.
Facebook isn’t out there looking to sow chaos and subvert democracy
They ran emotional experiments on their users, knowing they hadn't really consented. I think Facebook and 𝕏 might be pushing some agenda, even though not necessarily an anti-democracy one.