837
Censorship is getting out of hand
(lemmy.zip)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
837 points (98.9% liked)
Programmer Humor
19471 readers
1192 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We will never solve the Scunthorpe Problem.
there's a very trivial solution that always works actually, it's called "stop being a prude"
It's a clbuttic
Truly in a clbottom of its own
Hasn't it been proven unsolvable?
Impossible. There is always some mf named like cum-sock, smh
Excuse me? My family BUILT this country!
Or Grab-her.
Proven? I don't think so. I don't think there's a way to devise a formal proof around it. But there's a lot of evidence that, even if it's technically solvable, we're nowhere close.
Have you tried adding a few more kilobytes of regex?
Or a few more gb of LLM?
I swear, I just need 4-5 more graphics cards to solve this!
If only one could buttassinate censorship...
Don't you mean buttbuttinate?
bottombottominateFTFY
I have no rebottomal for this comment.
It causes so much dawizard.
I mean, you could just use a vaguely smarter filter. A tiny "L"LM might have different problems, but not this one.
So a TLM?
Awww, it's trying its best!
TJA suggests a TLM.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Indeed; it definitely would show some promise. At that point, you'd run into the problem of needing to continually update its weighting and models to account for evolving language, but that's probably not a completely unsolvable problem.
So maybe "never" is an exaggeration. As currently expressed, though, I think I can probably stand by my assertion.