It would be easier to list the things that should not be done and over with by now.

You should give it another viewing. There’s violence, but it’s not just random murder for its own sake like in The Purge. The protagonist carries out a series of targeted assassinations against people who were involved in detaining and experimenting on him in a concentration camp, and blows up a couple of empty buildings at the beginning and end of the movie in a symbolic act of defiance against a fascist regime. There’s a bit towards the end where he ships a bunch of guy fawkes masks to everyone and there’s some robbing and looting, but no killing until a secret police guy shoots an unarmed child in the street and some people jump him. The plot overall is about people rising up against and toppling a fascist regime, which is pretty relevant to current events.

Where did they mention wanton violence? That’s not what anarchism is, and that’s also not what’s portrayed in V for Vendetta.

TBH I wouldn’t put it past a bunch of right-wingers from Florida to think storming Cuba with half a dozen people in a speedboat is a good idea.

Obviously you’re part of the target audience - the entire western world is - but the primary target demographic is US Americans. There has been an increase in selective reporting on the political situation in Iran in order to manufacture consent for military intervention and ultimately regime change by the US. Western media has been known to do this in the past such as during the leadup to the Iraq war, and they’re doing the same thing now with Iran. They make certain editorial choices to play up the emotional impact and imply that US intervention is justified or even invited by Iranians, and because they don’t (usually) outright lie about what’s happening they have plausible deniability about their intent, which is why it can’t be proven.

430k Guardian subscribers are American, compared to 529k from the UK. A significant number of their articles are produced specifically for a US audience.

Having some basic media literacy and asking why a story is being told and who it’s for doesn’t make me a tankie or whatever box you’ve likely already put me in. I’m not even disputing the facts in the article. Propaganda can be truthful and still be propaganda. Atrocity propaganda often is, and even when it is exaggerated tends to be based on a kernel of truth.

It should be obvious that the target demographic for atrocity propaganda about an enemy of the US is US Americans.

And then you’d need to show how the article tries to convince me that a US military intervention would be something I as a european should support.

You, as a european, are not the target demographic.

The point is that mirroring the prompt style puts the LLM in a context space where it performs badly. This is because it doesn’t try to give correct answers, but likely ones. Incorrect answers are more likely to follow a prompt that is written with poor grammar and spelling.

We also get cravings for specific foods when our bodies are lacking in a nutrient that food contains. I don’t think we have them for every nutrient our bodies need, hence why people can get nutrient deficiencies by accident even when the nutrient they need is available, but there’s some instinctual failsafes for certain ones that must have been scarce or intermittent enough for cravings to confer an evolutionary advantage.

Well, yes, but that would require me to preemptively choose caution over expediency. On a related note, I always fight the giant spiders, and then get very upset at the predictable outcome.

The problem is that the center is defined relative to whatever political strains happen to exist at the moment, which are always in motion. The periphery moves, so the center moves with it. Anyone calling themselves centrists for an extended period of time is just someone without convictions who follows the general vibe around them.

That is not healthy, and you should stop doing that.

AI is new, the military industrial complex is not.

Compare it to free speech. Saying you don’t need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don’t need free speech because you have nothing to say. Eventually, through no fault of your own, there will come a time when you have something worth saying or hiding, and you will regret having surrendered your right to do so.

Another way to put it is: I don’t need privacy because my judgment and intentions are shady, but because the authorities’ judgment and intentions are, or one day will be. Allowing the authorities to invade your privacy and suppress your speech diminishes your ability to hold them accountable.

I’ve looked through the whole thread again and I don’t know where you’re getting the idea anyone’s accusing tankies of being sellouts. Best I can guess is that you misinterpreted the comment immediately above yours as saying tankies are secretly supporting the current fascist regime, is that it?

That’s not what they’re saying, they meant that tankies (I would clarify that it’s the chronically online tankies that are like this) want other people to fight the revolution for them, and won’t lift a single finger themselves until they can be sure that victory is inevitable. This is because they see themselves as the vanguard that tells everyone else what to do and how to do it, and will be put in charge after the revolution. That’s why people call them red fascists (though I don’t like that term myself as I don’t think they should be conflated with actual fascists, it hinders understanding), they want to be in the fascists’ place so they can use the systems of power and control that they built towards a different end (changing the economic system).

A previous person I talked to on lemmy.ml not long ago illustrated this mindset well, saying that authoritarianism is only a buzzword made up by the west to demonize their enemies, that it’s just people exercising power, and that it’s good when communists do it. Here’s what I see wrong with this: the tools of a fascist state are purpose-built for oppression, and trying to use them for anything else is futile. You will be corrupted by their power. We should not be trying to take and use these tools, but dismantling them and creating our own which are purpose-built for liberation.

They don’t like electoralism, prefer to LARP revolution while doing nothing to actually lay the groundwork for one.

I do understand how that works, and it’s not in the weights, it’s entirely in the context. ChatGPT can easily answer that question because the answer exists in the training data, it just doesn’t because there are instructions in the system prompt telling it not to. That can be bypassed by changing the context through prompt injection. The biases you’re talking about are not the same biases that are baked into the model. Remember how people would ask grok questions and be shocked at how “woke” it was at the same time that it was saying Nazi shit? That’s because the system prompt contains instructions like “don’t shy away from being politically incorrect” (that is literally a line from grok’s system prompt) and that shifts the model into a context in which Nazi shit is more likely to be said. Changing the context changes the model’s bias because it didn’t just learn one bias, it learned all of them. Whatever your biases are, talk to it enough and it will pick up on that, shifting the context to one where responses that confirm your biases are more likely.

It’s difficult to conceive the AI manually making this up for no reason, and doing it so consistently for multiple accounts so consistently when asked the same question.

If you understand how LLMs work it’s not difficult to conceive. These models are probabilistic and context-driven, and they pick up biases in their training data (which is nearly the entire internet). They learn patterns that exist in the training data, identify identical or similar patterns in the context (prompts and previous responses), and generate a likely completion of those patterns. It is conceivable that a pattern exists on the internet of people requesting information and - more often than not - receiving information that confirms whatever biases are evident in their request. Given that LLMs are known to be excessively sycophantic it’s not surprising that when prompted for proof of what the user already suspects to be true it generates exactly what they were expecting.

Cooperatives, mutual aid networks like Food Not Bombs, rank-and-file/leaderless unions like the IWW, etc. There is a limited number of modern day examples because such organizations have historically faced systematic repression, but the list grows much longer if we look to the past. Such organization also tends to form spontaneously during natural disasters and the like when there is little to no state intervention, and quickly dissolve whenever the state intervenes.

For organizations with broader scope and on longer timescales, the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico and Rojava in north and east Syria are good examples.

Keep in mind of course that the real world is messy and full of conflict, and that results in there not being any perfectly pure example of anarchist ideals in practice in the same way that there is no perfectly pure example of any ideology in practice. In addition, many of the groups I listed above do not make explicit reference to anarchism and are doing their own thing that just so happens to map onto anarchist ideas, and they often don’t call themselves anarchist or even have an aversion to ideological labels entirely.