image originally found at https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ralph-in-danger-im-in-danger

GlaDOS, eat your heart out

I don’t know what the exact genre name is but Opeth’s Eternal Rains Will Come comes to mind

We might finally get a triumvirate of generalist, centrist instances!

…or .world will crash, burn, and implode

Speaking of which, nice username

…

…

though I’m not sure I get the “train” bit

That’s such a great riff on the original xkcd

Do you remember where you found it?

Ooh, good catch

Also, no federation on the NodeBB/piefed unless/until the users overwhelmingly ask for it.

NodeBB or maybe piefed to host announcements and provide a place for questions and feedback.

Consider creating an account for each household with a “correct horse battery staple” style password that’s easy to input on mobile, print out a little slip of paper with an explanation blurb and account name & password, and deposit in their mailbox.

Do not expect any users until you’ve hosted several game nights that had multiple attendees. From what you say you are the events committee, not the online life committee. I would thus recommend to stay focused on events until people bring up, unprompted, a desire for more casual day-to-day interactions. You want to be integrating into their existing habits, not trying to replace them. Let the “switching” happen on their own initiative lest they feel like they’re being co-opted for your own personal agenda.

how delightful
great dedication to the bit

Banger title

I dislike yaml as much as the next person, but you can always “just” write Jason JSON (lol autocorrect). Unless I’m misunderstanding your criticism?

Forgejo has their own runner: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/admin/actions/runner-installation/

I’ve used it on my personal machine, was very easy to setup and mostly compatible with GitHub actions out-of-the-box (including things like actions/checkout@v4).

Then there’s kids like me, who would daydream about actually being a fae changeling.

It’s not even as if my parents didn’t love me, I was just a weird kid who was more comfortable being weird than fitting in.

“Chatgpt, how can I turn this into another reason to complain about rust?”

I see, thanks for the correction.

There used to be this website, but the url just loads up a scam site now (I’ve created this issue on the project’s tracker if anyone has additional info to contribute).

I don’t know how technical you are, @VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca , but you could try running the “defed-investigator” project locally.

lemmy.ml, no, but I’m fairly certain that lemmygrad.ml has been defederated from lemmy.world at least, if not others.

I’ll be honest, that “Iceberg Index” study doesn’t convince me just yet. It’s entirely built off of using LLMs to simulate human beings and the studies they cite to back up the effectiveness of such an approach are in paid journals that I can’t access. I also can’t figure out how exactly they mapped which jobs could be taken over by LLMs other than looking at 13k available “tools” (from MCPs to Zapier to OpenTools) and deciding which of the Bureau of Labor’s 923 listed skills they were capable of covering. Technically, they asked an LLM to look at the tool and decide the skills it covers, but they claim they manually reviewed this LLM’s output so I guess that counts.

Project Iceberg addresses this gap using Large Population Models to simulate the human–AI labor market, representing 151 million workers as autonomous agents executing over 32,000 skills across 3,000 counties and interacting with thousands of AI tools

from https://iceberg.mit.edu/report.pdf

Large Population Models is https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09901 which mostly references https://github.com/AgentTorch/AgentTorch, which gives as an example of use the following:

user_prompt_template = "Your age is {age} {gender},{unemployment_rate} the number of COVID cases is {covid_cases}."
# Using Langchain to build LLM Agents
agent_profile = "You are a person living in NYC. Given some info about you and your surroundings, decide your willingness to work. Give answer as a single number between 0 and 1, only."

The whole thing perfectly straddles the line between bleeding-edge research and junk science for someone who hasn’t been near academia in 7 years like myself. Most of the procedure looks like they know what they’re doing, but if the entire thing is built on a faulty premise then there’s no guaranteeing any of their results.

In any case, none of the authors for the recent study are listed in that article on the previous study, so this isn’t necessarily a case of MIT as a whole changing it’s tune.

(The recent article also feels like a DOGE-style ploy to curry favor with the current administration and/or AI corporate circuit, but that is a purely vibes-based assessment I have of the tone and language, not a meaningful critique)

I would love to read that study, as going off of your comment I could easily see it being a case of “more than 10% of jobs are bullshit jobs à la David Graeber so having an « AI » do them wouldn’t meaningfully change things” rather than “more than 10% of what can’t be done by previous automation now can be”.