this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
14 points (76.9% liked)
Casual Conversation
3307 readers
186 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Many AI chatbots or chat assists are by default programmed to be saccharine to the point of disingenuousness. Don’t adjust your values to categorically match what they are programmed to praise or condemn. They appear on the surface as people-pleasers but are actually intended to please their distributor’s investors. Additionally and most critically, don’t fall into the trap of thinking of the machines as people.
With the AI tangent aside, with human interactions I definitely do feel the disparity between coddling and general treatment in society. If you’ve ever seen people interact with young kids or people with disabilities, especially mental disabilities, people often express overvaluing of their actions and creations to boost their confidence. While it may be a great achievement for that individual’s standards and capabilities and they do deserve praise for that much, lauding a simple piece of macaroni art as being better than the Mona Lisa, for example, is probably not genuine and can in fact undermine the creator’s confidence if they are aware enough to sense that lack of genuineness. However, for some people maybe they’d rather have that piece of macaroni art over the Mona Lisa because it is made by someone they love and care about and they highly value tokens of that person. Sometimes it can feel as if there is a conspiracy against someone if they notice a mismatch between the level of praise they receive and their presence and level of success in society elsewhere, and I too have experienced that sensation.
Speaking of treating LLMs as people, I’ve noticed that my response style switches depending on the situation. For example, when an LLM asks an overly chatty and pointless follow-up question that derails the entire conversation, I can just simply ignore that. When a human does the same, I tend to address that in some way out of politeness. When it comes to LLM interactions, politeness like that just flies out the window.