It seems pretty obvious that an open weight model is a prime vector for social engineering/disinformation. If you can’t see the training data or mechanism, you are putting an awful lot of trust in the source. Better make sure that source has your best interests in mind.
Never tried it. It looks like maybe the mobile app is not available from open source repos.
FYI, I came across an app called FindFamily on F-Droid, but it looks like a vibe-coded vaporware, and who knows what server it’s connecting to in the background.
On device, I’d trust OwnTracks, Colota, or GPSLogger, then use Dawarich or Reitti on the server. That is, if you are interested in device history, which could be useful in tracking a lost device, or just having your personal memoies saved.
These do not provide defensive measures like photo or remote wiping. FMD can do that over SMS if the phone is disconnected from the server.
I had this and switched to reitti with owntracks specifically to work with multiple family accounts. Owntracks is not as nice as Colota in most ways, but shows the live location of my family. I had some stability issues with dawarich using multiple devices (most likely user error) but liked it. I do think that reitti has a nicer interface and features, but probably a matter of taste.
portrayimg it as motivated by bigotry when it’s not
This is the thread you are replying to. If you are discussing something else, I’m afraid you’ll have to specify it.
In my experience anonymous people online don’t hide their bigotry behind an eloborate 10-point system. In this case, yes. I believe the motivation is exactly as it’s presented.
The fact that the dev clearly thinks it is a fair justification shows exactly the mindset. The problem is bad enough on its own without making up additional poorly founded accusations.
Not sure. I only saw this.
You’re right, I should specify (although the condescension is not helping your case). They are views deemed problematic by the Tesseract dev.
I’ve had run-ins with other devs or instance admins who find my views problematic, and banned me from their community/instance/whatever. That’s unfortunate, but it’s transparent. People know who the petty tyrants are and act accordingly.
This is something different.
Having a frontend preemptively blocking users and instances based on the sole judgment of the dev is unprecedented AFAIK. We don’t need to invent intimations of bigotry to see why this is wholly bad for the platform. It goes against basic principles of transparency, openness, and free choice that the Fediverse is based on.
I believe that a front-end (client) should be a tool to access the service/network. It shouldn’t be making content decisions. If someone wants to make a block list and publish it for others to use, that’s great. If someone wants to trust an admin for content curation/blocking, well… that’s how this whole thing works. People choose or change instances based largely on that trust. But to have a tool for accessing the network also modifying the content? That’s bad, and a bad precedent.
See, THIS is the issue I wish people would focus on. The dev of a pretty important frontend has set up a block list. They have made it the default. They have not applied a clear and equitable criteria, set up a community feedback channel, or any sort of crowdsourced input.
The modlog is open, meaning that anyone can see exactly what moderators and admins (generally) are up to. People can (and do) push back when things decisions are punitive, arbitrary, or unclear.
This is not that. You have no way to see why your username was included, or correct it if it was in error. There is no community feedback to direct what standard makes sense.
That’s the problem. It’s draconian. By manufacturing some shrill accusations of bigotry, yeah, it makes a lot more flashy posts, but doesn’t help in addressing the issue. If we can’t accurately name problems, we can’t solve them. We are just a mob on a witch-hunt.
Nope, I’m just a rational person who doesn’t automatically buy into hysteria.
That’s a big distortion. They are accounts that advocate violence or other problematic political views. Many of them are also LGBT, but that’s not why they are on the block list.
I do think it’s problematic for a client/frontend to default-block any group of individuals or instances at all, but portrayimg it as motivated by bigotry when it’s not is pretty messed up too.
Yes, just not a long line of great governance.
Some unexpected wins for New Jersey lately, huh?
It’s amazing to me how widespread this is on Lemmy.
For finding them in the dark, a little scented oil also works. That way you can identify them by smell.
All it ever made me is fatter. Veggies ain’t cheap.
Let the intrusive thoughts win.
It seems like if you can recreate the training, the model could be considered open.
Lots of open source software performs operations on proprietary data, or accesses proprietary data/endpoints. That doesn’t make the software itself compromised.
LLMs are perhaps a little bit different in that the output (weights) is the part of the software that is useful.