I’m not sure the 6 million people that died from Measles before we had the vaccine would agree “Measles is a positive illness”.
“Prior to the introduction of measles vaccination in 1963, there were >100 million measles cases resulting in 6 million deaths worldwide, with 4 million cases and 450 deaths in the US annually.” source
Also even if you survive, it fucks up your immune system for several years after, preventing you from developing immunities and even erasing ones you already had.
In 2011/2012 Influenza caused death in 0.13% of cases according to the CDC.
According to the numbers in your quote, in 1963 Measles did cause death 6% of the time worldwide, but it only caused death 0.011% of the time in the U.S., less than Influenza in modern times.
I don’t know why, but I felt like your numbers weren’t compelling, and I felt like looking them up. I don’t know what it means though. I’m sure there are other factors to be considered.
How that preclude these models from being creative? Randomness within rules can be pretty creative. All life on earth is the result of selection on random mutations. Its output is way more structured and coherent than random noise. That’s not a good comparison at all.
Either way, generative tools are a great way for the people using to create with, no model has to be creative on its own.
I don’t think all creativity requires intentionality. Some forms of creativity are the accumulation of unintentional outcomes, like when someone sets out to copy a thing, but due to mistakes or other factors outside their control end up with something unique to what they were going for.
But you can still be creative if you keep every outcome, it would be very hard to prove creativity if you discard everything. The one could argue you’re creative the moment you select something.
A person sees a piece of art and is inspired. They understand what they see, be it a rose bush to paint or a story beat to work on. This inspiration leads to actual decisions being made with a conscious aim to create art.
An AI, on the other hand, sees a rose bush and adds it to its rose bush catalog, reads a story beat and adds to to its story database. These databases are then shuffled and things are picked out, with no mind involved whatsoever.
A person knows why a rose bush is beautiful, and internalises that thought to create art. They know why a story beat is moving, and can draw out emotional connections. An AI can’t do either of these.
Yeah, I know it doesn’t actually “see” anything, and is just making best guesses based on pre-gathered data. I was just simplifying for the comparison.
A person is also very much adding rose bushes and story beats to their internal databases. You learn to paint by copying other painters, adding their techniques to a database. You learn to write by reading other authors, adding their techniques to a database. Original styles/compositions are ultimately just a rehashing of countless tiny components from other works.
An AI understands what they see, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to generate a “rose bush” when you ask for one. It’s an understanding based on a vector space of token sequence weights, but unless you can describe the actual mechanism of human thought beyond vague concepts like “inspiration”, I don’t see any reason to assume that our understanding is not just a much more sophisticated version of the same mechanism.
The difference is that we’re a black box, AI less so. We have a better understanding of how AI generates content than how the meat of our brain generates content. Our ignorance, and use of vague romantic words like “inspiration” and “understanding”, is absolutely not proof that we’re fundamentally different in mechanism.
A person painting a rose bush draws upon far more than just a collection of rose bushes in their memory. There’s nothing vague about it, I just didn’t feel like getting into much detail, as I thought that statement might jog your memory of a common understanding we all have about art. I suppose that was too much to ask.
For starters, refer to my statement “a person understands why a rose bush is beatiful”. I admit that maybe this is vague, but let’s unpack.
Beaty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. It is a subjective thing, requiring opinion, and AIs cannot hold opinions. I find rose bushes beautiful due to the inherent contrast between the delicate nature of the rose buds, and the almost monstrous nature of the fronds.
So, if I were to draw a rose bush, I would emphasise these aspects, out of my own free will. I might even draw it in a way that resembles a monster. I might even try to tell a story with the drawing, one about a rose bush growing tired of being pkucked, and taking revenge on the humans who dare to steal its buds.
“Beauty”, “opinion”, “free will”, “try”. These are vague, internal concepts. How do you distinguish between a person who really understands beauty, and someone who has enough experience with things they’ve been told are beautiful to approximate? How do you distinguish between someone with no concept of beauty, and someone who sees beauty in drastically different things than you? How do you distinguish between the deviations from photorealism due to imprecise technique, and deviations due to intentional stylistic impressionism?
What does a human child draw? Just a rosebush, poorly at that. Does that mean humans have no artistic potential? AI is still in relative infancy, the artistic stage of imitation and technique refinement. We are only just beginning to see the first glimmers of multi-modal AI, recursive models that can talk to themselves and pass information between different internal perspectives. Some would argue that internal dialogue is precisely the mechanism that makes human thought so sophisticated. What makes you think that AI won’t quickly develop similar sophistication as the models are further developed?
Philosophical masturbation, based on a poor understanding of what is an already solved issue.
We know for a fact that a machine learning model does not even know what a rosebush is. It only knows the colours of pixels that usually go into a photo of one. And even then, it doesn’t even know the colours - only the bit values that correspond to them.
That is it.
Opinions and beauty are not vague, and nor are free will and trying, especially in this context. You only wish them to be for your argument.
An opinion is a value judgment. AIs don’t have values, and we have to deliberately restrict them to stop actual chaos happening.
Beauty is, for our purposes, something that the individual finds worthy of viewing and creating. Only people can find things beautiful. Machine learning algrorithms are only databases with complex retrieval systems.
Free will is also quite obvious in context: being able to do something of your own volition. AIs need exact instructions to get anything done. They can’t make decisions beyond what you tell them to do.
Trying? I didn’t even define this as human specific
I couldn’t have put it better myself. You’ve said lots of philosophical words without actually addressing any of my questions:
How do you distinguish between a person who really understands beauty, and someone who has enough experience with things they’ve been told are beautiful to approximate?
How do you distinguish between someone with no concept of beauty, and someone who sees beauty in drastically different things than you?
How do you distinguish between the deviations from photorealism due to imprecise technique, and deviations due to intentional stylistic impressionism?
Every step of the way, a machine learning model is only making guesses based on previous training data. And not what the data actually is, but the pieces of it. Do green pixels normally go here? Does the letter “k” go here?
What evidence do you have that human cognition is functionally different? I won’t argue that humans are more sophisticated for sure. But what justification do you have to claim that humans aren’t just very, very good at making guesses based on previous training data?
I’m sorry that you’re struggling. Perhaps if you answered any of the questions I posed (twice) in order to frame the topic in a concrete way, we could have a more productive conversation that might provide elucidation for one, or both, of us. I fail to see how continuing to ignore those core questions, and instead focusing on questions that weren’t asked, will help either one of us.
You’re presupposing that brains and computers are basically the same thing. They are fundamentally different.
An AI doesn’t understand. It has an internal model which produces outputs, based on the training data it received and a prompt. That’s a different cathegory than “understanding”.
Otherwise, spotify or Youtube recommendation algorithms would also count as understanding the contents of the music/videos they supply.
An AI doesn’t understand. It has an internal model which produces outputs, based on the training data it received and a prompt. That’s a different cathegory than “understanding”.
Is it? That’s precisely how I’d describe human understanding. How is our internal model, trained on our experiences, which generates responses to input, fundamentally different from an LLM transformer model? At best we’re multi-modal, with overlapping models which we move information between to consider multiple perspectives.
Interesting take on LLMs, how are you so sure about that?
I mean I get it, current image gen models seem clearly uncreative, but at least the unrestricted versions of Bing Chat/ChatGPT leave some room for the possibility of creativity/general intelligence in future sufficiently large LLMs, at least to me.
So the question (again: to me) is not only “will LLM scale to (human level) general intelligence”, but also “will we find something better than RLHF/LLMs/etc. before?”.
I’m not sure on either, but asses roughly a 2/3 probability to the first and given the first event and AGI in reach in the next 8 years a comparatively small chance for the second event.
This argument was settled with electronic music in the 80s/90s. Samples and remixes taken directly from other bits of music to create a new piece aren't plagiarism.
And you’re absolutely right about that. That’s not the same thing as LLMs being incapable of constituting anything written in a novel way, but that they will readily with very little prodding regurgitate complete works verbatim is definitely a problem. That’s not a remix. That’s publishing the same track and slapping your name on it. Doing it two bars at a time doesn’t make it better.
It’s so easy to get ChatGPT, for example, to regurgitate its training data that you could do it by accident (at least until someone published it last year). But, the critics cry, you’re using ChatGPT in an unintended way. And indeed, exploiting ChatGPT to reveal its training data is a lot like lobotomizing a patient or torture victim to get them to reveal where they learned something, but that really betrays that these models don’t actually think at all. They don’t actually contribute anything of their own; they simply have such a large volume of data to reorganize that it’s (by design) impossible to divine which source is being plagiarised at any given token.
Add to that the fact that every regulatory body confronted with the question of LLM creativity has so far decided that humans, and only humans, are capable of creativity, at least so far as our ordered societies will recognize. By legal definition, ChatGPT cannot transform (term of art) a work. Only a human can do that.
It doesn’t really matter how an LLM does what it does. You don’t need to open the black box to know that it’s a plagiarism machine, because plagiarism doesn’t depend on methods (or sophisticated mental gymnastics); it depends on content. It doesn’t matter whether you intended the work to be transformative: if you repeated the work verbatim, you plagiarized it. It’s already been demonstrated that an LLM, by definition, will repeat its training data a non-zero portion of the time. In small chunks that’s indistinguishable, arguably, from the way a real mind might handle language, but in large chunks it’s always plagiarism, because an LLM does not think and cannot “remix”. A DJ can make a mashup; an AI, at least as of today, cannot. The question isn’t whether the LLM spits out training data; the question is the extent to which we’re willing to accept some amount of plagiarism in exchange for the utility of the tool.
The samples were intentionally rearranged and mixed with other content in a new and creative way.
When sampling took off, the copyright situation was sorted out and the end result is that there are ways to license samples. Some samples are produced like stock footage hat could be pirchased inexpensively, which is why a lot of songs by different artists have the same samples included. Samples of specific songs have to be licensed, so a hip hop song with a riff from an older famous song had some kind of licensing or it wouldnt be played on the radio or streaming services. They might have paid one time, or paid an artist group for access to a bunch of songs, basically the same kind of thing as covers.
Samples and covers are not plagarism if they are licensed and credit their source. Both are creating someing new, but using and crediting existing works.
AI is doing the same sampling and copying, but trying to pretend that it is somehow not sampling and copying and the companies running AI don’t want to credit the sources or license the content. That is why AI is plagarism.
Ray parker's Ghostbusters is inspired by huey lewis and the new's i want a new drug. But actually it's just blatant plagiarism. Is it okay because a human did it?
Please tell me how an AI model can distinguish between “inspiration” and plagiarism then. I admit I don’t know that much about them but I was under the impression that they just spit out something that it “thinks” is the best match for the prompt based on its training data and thus could not make this distinction in order to actively avoid plagiarism.
Not my point at all. Latent diffusion is a tool used by people in a creative manner. It's a new medium. Every argument you're making was made again photography a century ago, and against pre-mixed paints before that! You have no idea what you're talking about and can;t even figure out where the argument is let alone that you lost it before you were born!
Or do you think no people are involved? That computers are just sitting there producing images with no involvement and no-one is ever looking at them, and that that is somehow a threat to you? What? How dumb are you?
Dude I am actively trying to take your arguments in good faith but the fact that you can hardly post an answer without name calling someone is making it real hard to believe you are being genuine about this
I repeatedly agreed that AI models can be used as a tool by creative people. All I’m saying is that it can’t be creative by itself.
When I say they’re “plagiarism machines”, I’m claiming that they’re currently mostly used to plagiarise by people without a creative bone in their body who directly use the output of an AI, mistaking it for artwork.
That is not what you have said. Of course it can't be creative by itself, not can a paint brush or a camera. That's a non-argument. You keep using the word plagiarism as if it's in any way relevant. It's not. A camera or a paint brush can be used to plagiarise as well so drop that
A camera or a paint brush can be used to plagiarise as well so drop that
Unlike cameras or paint brushes, the overwhelming majority of generative AI is trying to cut out the artist in an artistic process (the rest is used for deepfake porn). Since the training data for the AI was taken without consent and the original authors aren’t credited, IMHO, it counts as plagiarism.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. What you have just said is bullshit and you know it. I'm done because I have had this stupid fucking argument too fucking many times and you lost it generations ago so please, just shut up and fuck off!
Please tell me how an AI model can distinguish between “inspiration” and plagiarism then.
[…] they just spit out something that it “thinks” is the best match for the prompt based on its training data and thus could not make this distinction in order to actively avoid plagiarism.
I’m not entirely sure what the argument is here. Artists don’t scour the internet for any image that looks like their own drawings to avoid plagiarism, and often use photos or the artwork of others as reference, but that doesn’t mean they’re plagiarizing.
Plagiarism is about passing off someone else’s work as your own, and image-generation models are trained with the intent to generalize - that is, being able to generate things it’s never seen before, not just copy, which is why we’re able to create an image of an astronaut riding a horse even though that’s something the model obviously would’ve never seen, and why we’re able to teach the models new concepts with methods like textual inversion or Dreambooth.
I get your point, but as soon as you ask them to draw something that has been drawn before, all the AI models I fiddled with tend to effectively plagiarize the hell out of their training data unless you jump through hoops to tell them not to
You’re right, as far as I know we have not yet implemented systems to actively reduce similarity to specific works in the training data past a certain point, but if we chose to do so in the future this would raise the question of formalising when plagiarism starts; which I suspect to be challenging in the near future, as society seems to not yet have a uniform opinion on the matter.
And yet so many of the debates around this new formation of media and creativity come down to the grey space between what is inspiration and what is plagiarism.
Even if everyone agreed with your point, and I think broadly they do, it doesn’t settle the debate.
But an artist cannot be inspired without content from other artists. I don’t agree to the word “copied” here either, because it is not copying when it creates something new.
I’m sure many artists would love having ultimate knowledge about all art relevant to their craft - it just hasn’t been feasible. Perhaps if art-generating AI could correctly cite their references it would be more acceptable for commercial use.
We’ll soon see whether or not it’s the same thing.
Only a 50 years ago or so, some well-known philosophers off AI believed computers would write great poetry before they could ever beat a grand master at chess.
I think the relevant point is that chess is discrete while art isn’t. Or they both are but the problem space that art can explore is much bigger than the space chess can (chess has 64 square on the board and 7 possibilities for each square, which would be a tiny image that an NES could show more colours for or a poem with 64 words, but you can only select from 7 words).
Chess is an easier problem to solve than art is, unless you define a limited scope of art.
We could use “Writing a Sonnet” as a suitably discrete and limited form of art that’s undeniably art, and ask the question “Can a computer creatively write a sonnet”? Which raises the question “Do humans creatively write sonnets?” or are they all derivative?
Humans used to think of chess as an art and speak of “creativity” in chess, by which they meant the expression of a new idea on how to play. This is a reasonable definition, and going by it, chess programs are undeniably creative. Yet for whatever reason, the word doesn’t sit right when talking about these programs.
I suspect we’ll continue to not find any fundamental difference between what the machines are doing and what we are doing. Then unavoidably we’ll either have to concede that the machines are “creative” or we are not.
They do not ease in to Toxicity. So so good. I loved the self-titled album and even saw them live at that era, but the gravity of their message did not sink in until later.
Made the mistake of asking for help on a game’s discord (the developers had wiped my save data including premium currency because they migrated to a new account system and I didn’t catch it in time)
Surprised how eager people are to shit on each other even when it’s on behalf of a company that will screw them over in a heartbeat
The type of people you encounter on game forums are not representative of the games because who tf spend their entire day waiting for one person to post about an issue just to shit on them
Epson EcoTank. They’re expensive printers, but the ink is so cheap they make up for it. I absolutely love mine and recommend it to anyone looking for a printer.
If you’re gonna spend money on a decent printer, go with a laser printer unless you specifically need ink printing.
I have an HP I got like a decade ago, and only had to change the OEM toner carts in the last 6mo or so. The thing has survived 3 moves too, so it’s held up like a champ. It probably helps that it’s an older HP, so it was before they went to shit.
Hi, this is Hewlett Packard here. We read your post and are happy you love our products! Wouldn’t it make sense for you to upgrade to one of our newer models? I’m sure you’re tired of lugging your heavy, old printer these days.
Our new ones are much lighter! Lighter in weight due to beautiful design! Lighter even on your wallet (at first, and for now)!
Won’t you consider upgrading and locking in - I mean - “purchasing” a new printer, pretty please? uwu :3
Here’s a friendly Kirby to convince you to upgrade! See, we’re cool and we know how to use product placement! Upgrade now or else!! We can’t wait for YOUR SOUL TO BE OURS.
Disadvantage with laser is they are bigger and heavier and when you do have to replace parts other than the toner, it’s expensive. I don’t have a large house and went with a small Canon inkjet for space considerations. We only print occasionally so it’s worked ok for us.
Do you have issues with the inkjet heads crusting up and causing issues with ink waste? We only print like once or twice a month at most, and that was the reason I went away from them.
That was my issue. Pretty much print a handful of times a year, mostly around tax season and without fail my ink has dried out and needs to be repurchased. Got a brother laser printer 2 yrs ago, still haven’t replaced the original toner. Easily in the black for not having to buy ink 2x despite the laser printer being pricier than I’d prefer
They really don’t have to be bigger and heavier. I have a Pantum P2502w laser printer and it is seriously one of the smallest printers I’ve ever owned including inkjets. I feel like laser printers always default to paper storage being underneath them instead of having a feeder tray that sticks out further from the body? And that puts them into a larger form factor.
That being said, I’m fairly sure this is a much lighter duty laser printer than other heavier ones.
Also this is not really an endorsement for Pantum, the software and firmware are buggy as hell, but the software isn’t bad enough for me to throw it out and the hardware will probably last a decade so good luck to me.
Yup. Inkjet printers became popular because of digital cameras. But unless you’re printing a bunch of photos, you really don’t need an inkjet. And even if you are printing photos, it’s usually better to just go to a print shop or use Google Photos.
I’d like to just say that I appreciate the nuance of printer usage around here. Reddit was single minded about Brother lasers, and had no idea what high end inkjet photo printers were for. It’s a niche, but >$1000 inkjets with 7 different ink colors exist for a reason.
If people want a simple answer, then it’s that no printer under $150 or so should exist. If you can’t afford spending a little more up front, then you won’t be able to afford the ink on those printers.
Boom. My HP is a tiny B&W from 10+ years ago. Runs like a champ, $20 for an easy 1,000 pages, or more. WFH and do a little company printing so they buy the supplies. MUCH love. When it finally kicks it, if I can’t find a refurb kit, I’ll go Brother.
Honestly, if I printed enough to warrant it, I’d go for that Epson… But I stick with my color laser because it’s over ten years old and I print so little it still has the starter cartridges in it, ink would have dried out so many times during that period
Actually eco tank printers are also designed to fail as they have ink pads that can only be replaced by the manufacturer I recommend you watch this video explaining the problem with tank printers like the eco tank.
Actually eco tank printers are also designed to fail as they have ink pads that can only be replaced by the manufacturer I recommend you watch this video explaining the problem with tank printers like the eco tank.
That’s an ink absorber, and all inkjet printers have them. It’s not “designed to fail”, it’s a physical limitation of the universe. You can’t just keep dumping ink into a sponge forever. Eventually it will become saturated and you can either clean it or replace it.
I’ve had my printer for about four years and haven’t needed to replace one yet. They only cost about $10 when you do need to replace it. If they cost several hundred dollars, I would see your point, but the savings in ink more than makes up for having to replace a sponge every decade or so.
It’s not designed to fail. It’s designed to be user serviceable. You can buy a replacement and replace it yourself. It literally only requires a Phillips head screwdriver to take out the one screw on the back panel. If that is designed to fail, then a car needing an oil change is “designed to fail”.
It is made out of materials that have a set lifetime or propensity for easily breaking, like glass screens that explode into a supernova if you look at them wrong.
What I meant by “designed to fail” is that most of these ecotank printers need the counter to be reset by epson themselves. You can easily replace the pads. But you can’t easily reset the counter. It is possible but it involves trusting sketch sites and paying for a license to use the reset software. Older cartridges based epson printers had waste tanks with chips so that it could know when it was replaced. Newer eco tank printers don’t have the chip that let’s it know when the waste tank is replaced.
That’s not designed to fail, that’s designed to be serviced. Do you call cars “designed to fail” because they need new oil filters and the check engine light comes on when you need an oil change?
Yeah but it’s the same as if the oil filter in your car was super glued in and the dealership was the only ones that had the chemical to dissolve the glue.
You just said there are other ways to do it besides Epson. There are multiple sites that provide utilities to reset the counter.
The sponges are cheap. Way cheaper than using a cartridge printer. You can even just clean out the sponge and put it back in. You don’t have to buy a new one.
Even going through Epson’s first party maintenance program is way cheaper than using a cartridge printer. Like, orders of magnitude cheaper.
I won’t go eco tank personally, clogs and cleaning is a royal pain on them and there’s no good purge feature. I would fully recommend going this path only if accuracy on color is requirement further then laser printers do
I’ve had mine for about four years. I’ve had clogged print heads once, and I ran the auto cleaning five times, then it worked. I’ll give you that it was a pain, but the purge feature works. You’ve just gotta do it multiple times if it’s a really bad clog.
Fuck Epson, fuck them fuck them fuck them fuck Epson, Epson can suck my dick, Epson can lick my asshole, Epson can dance in traffic and go to hell. Fuck Epson.
Epson is the only one for me, my beloved. She prints in black, when the colours are empty. She has simple and intuitive router pairing. She did not fucking explode a FUCKING INK CARTRIDGE ONTO MY FUCKING FACE I CANT KEEP THIS CHARADE UP I FUCKING HATE EPSON PRINTERS RRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH
Yes and no. I have one and they work fine until you unplug them for any length of time. Then you have to deal with cleaning all the printheads and getting it to work properly again. Typically needs multiple passes before it will print right. I know it’s a problem with all ink jet printers. It’s a shame toner is more expensive and colour laser printers are so expensive. If not I would switch to one of them.
Nah. After getting a laser jet I’ll never go back to an inkjet printer. For the cost of an eco tank you can get a solid laser printer with zero maintenance and it will last much longer.
I’ve had mine for seven years and only changed the ink twice.
Ok so I did more reading because the wiki alone was already fascinating. I mean the VP to Hoover, seriously really only white men for nearly 100 years, and the assimilation thing seemed weird to me. How is giving up your land and heritage a good thing? Well it wasn’t, at least for his tribe. They almost lost everything even their language.
Anyway I found this article really fascinating but the end gave me a chuckle
When asked on the phone how members of the Kaw Nation feel about Curtis today, a representative said it wasn’t her place to say. Then she hung up.
And all this started cuz his grandma was like fuck off don’t come home, go assimilate. She encouraged it and he was even sent to live with his white grandparents as a teenager. Maybe he was an asshole and that was her excuse or she really believed it idk but damn.
For many tribes, assimilation seemed like the only possible option. Having seen what the federal government did to Indigenous Peoples that refused to assimilate, sometimes elders would tell the younger generations to not come home. To sacrifice that they might at least live and love.
Thank you so much for pointing out my blind spots. You’re 100% right and my making light of it was insensitve and disrespectful. (I’m replying this to both of you so you have the notification, as both posts gave me a lot to reflect on. )
Thank you so much for pointing out my blind spots. You’re 100% right and my making light of it was insensitve and disrespectful. (I’m replying this to both of you so you have the notification, as both posts gave me a lot to reflect on. )
Oh that is nice if you to follow up. I don’t think it was intentionally insensitive. It was a reasonable conclusion to draw without knowing more context, but thanks for being mature and responsible for what you say/write. Seems pretty rare these days.
When I first code something up, I think of it as a first draft, and I expect maybe 5ish typos / brainos per 100 lines. Only a few times in my life have I finished writing a few hundred lines of code, tried to compile / run it, and not seen at least a few errors.
When I don’t see errors, it’s almost always because somehow I managed to not compile / run the code at all. Like, one of my typos / brainos managed to cause it to skip that entire new block of code. Only once or twice has it happened because I actually wrote error-free code the first time. And, let me tell you, that perfect code sucked up so much more time than the more typical bad code.
With the bad code, I see the various errors, quickly fix them, and those errors convince me that the compiler / interpreter has actually seen all the new stuff and judged it. But, with perfect-from-the-start code, I now have to go in and throw in print statements, or step through a debugger to convince myself that yes, the system actually made it into that function and actually did execute those statements.
I used to work in the adtech industry so allow me to translate:
Metrixlab buys data from harvesters and uses some algorithm to tell companies where to put product placements. I don't know why they mention e-commerce because Amazon killed that industry.
Harris Interactive makes ad content. All that shit about "consumer intelligence" and "simplifies intricate decision-making" is about using ads to get people to make emotional rather than rational decisions.
GutCheck is probably behind a lot of astroturfing of brands on websites. That's why they're bringing brands "closer to authentic, contextualized human experiences."
KuRunData is sifting through all WeChat data to gather information about companies.
lemmy.world
Top