Anedotally this is why I didn’t like bio, none of the labs really ever worked and we always fudged some data.

In a weird sort of way it does. Consider all of the following

1. big companies are often incompetent and inefficient in a lot of ways
2. The mozilla foundation has confirmed the security issues that Anthropic found were real
3. Generally over the past few years, anthropic has some of the best, most reliable models
4. Claude code has been kinda bad for a while
5. Claude code has been mainly bot-written for a while as well. This can lead to functional, decent code that’s still terrible in many ways as seen from the leak. Also it’s entirely possible that bots are worse at detecting issues in bot written code. You could argue if they were good at it, they would be less likely to write those security issues in the first place?
6. Anthropic could have very skilled ml engineers but mediocre software developers

Oh sweet. Might try it again.

I’ve yet to even get the lemmy frontend successfully running for development. Maybe piefed will be easier

“deleted from the internet” is an oxymoron, it’s nonsensical. I still see that image everywhere

That would have the unfortunate side effect of increasing negativity, as people are pushed to actually voice it instead of giving a harmless downvote. And when you consider the extra effort required, the downvote itself essentially becomes meaningless, turning this into a mechanism of “if you don’t like it, make sure to let everyone know why, or shut up” which I don’t think is very helpful.

That said, maybe something like adding an extra step where you choose a reason for the downvote from a list like “spammy, offensive, rude/toxic, annoying, misleading/innacurate” etc. or write your own, and those could be visible to moderators (anonymously) as a sort of micro-report. Would dissuade people from mindlessly downvoting and help improve moderation in the process.