I get you. But they're the flagship instance. At least they used to be. They shape the brand identity of whole Lemmy. And that's being tankie and having a culture that could be nice, but regularly isn't. So everyone on the internet knows Lemmy isn't really something I want to subject myself to. And if we're being honest, alsmost nobody knows the fine nuances of power abuse on specific instances. It's just "Lemmy" that this gets attributed to.
Every interaction here represents Lemmy. Some disproportionately so.
And we've established, me leaving (which I've done) is not gonna change anything about it. The communities are still amongst the largest and where most of the users are, and also attracting the new users.
Your argumantation would be perfectly valid if lemmy.ml were some small instance that's unheard of by most users. Or blocked by the rest of the network. We could ignore them then, let them do their own thing like the Fediverse does with a few nazi and conspiracy instances. But this isn't the case here.
Regarding money and doing it "for the fun of it": That's not correct. They get money for two or three full-time jobs from the NLNet fund and the EU. They could be having fun, too. But they definitely also get a substancial amount of money for it.
Concerning the 4chan example: That's on point. 4chan is the epitome of echo chamber and incel culture. That's mainly because there's no one else. They left. And now, why would anyone else visit a place like that in the first place? I'd rather not Lemmy become like that. Do you?
Well that paper only says it's theoretically not possible to completely eliminate hallucination. That doesn't mean it can be migitated and reduced to the point of insignificance. I think fabricating things is part of creativity. I mean LLMs are supposed to come up with new text. But maybe they're not really incentivised to differentiate between fact and fiction. I mean they have been trained on fictional content, too. I think the main problem is to control when to stick close to facts and when to be creative. Sure, I'd agree that we can't make them infallible. But there's probably quite some room for improvement. (And I don't really agree with the premise of the paper that it's caused solely from shortcomings in the training data. It's an inherent problem in being creative and that the world also consists of fiction and opinions and so much more than factual statements... But the training data quality and bias also has a severe effect.)
That paper is interesting. Thanks!
But I really fail to grasp the diagonal argument. Can we really choose the ground truth function f arbitrarily? Doesn't that just mean given arbitrary realities, there aren't hallucination-free LLMs in all of them? But I don't really care if there's a world where 1+1=2 and simultaneously 1+1=3 and there can't be an LLM telling the "truth" in that world... I think they need to narrow down "f". To me a reality needs to fulfill certain requirements. Like being contradiction free etc. And they'd need to prove that Cantor applies to that subset of "f".
And secondly: Why does the LLM need to decide between true and false? Can't it not just say "I don't know?" I think that'd immediately ruin their premise, too. Because they only look at LLMs who don't ever refuse and have to decide on a truth.
I think this is more related to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which somehow isn't mentioned in the paper. I'm not a proper scientist and didn't really understand it, so I might be wrong with all of that. But it doesn't feel correct to me. And I mean the paper hasn't been cited or peer-reviewed (as of now). So it's more like just their opinion, anyways. I say (if their maths is correct) they just proved that there can't be an LLM that knows everything in any possible and impossible world. That doesn't quite apply because LLMs that don't know everything are useful, too. And we're concerned with one specific reality here that has some limitations. Like physics, objectivity or consistency.