Gaywallet (they/it) @ Gaywallet @beehaw.org

I'm gay

---

Read more

Posts

213

Comments

766

Joined

3 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Aw dang, was hoping there was a synopsis or transcription. Either way, thanks for the link!

Archive Link: https://archive.is/1Avrw

Arguably its a direct result of fentanyl's ease of synthesis and import from overseas

but more importantly I'm talking about the creation of the epidemic in the first place, not on addicts switching from one opioid to another... the whole thing is complicated but ultimately drug enforcement is neither the source of the problem nor the solution.

At the very least this could be interpreted as every egg = a child, so we should see wide interpretation varying from every woman murdered should be considered a mass murder case to if a pre-menopausal woman drives or rides in a car, it can be in the carpool lane.

the DEA that decided to crack down twice as hard to make up for their fuck ups with the opioid crisis.

Frankly, the DEA should not be at blame or fault for the opioid crisis. The crisis was a capitalistic creation, where we did not have appropriate regulation on the interaction between the drug designers (those who profited) and the drug prescribers (those who gave access). The drug designers pursued a method to maximize profits by paying the prescribers to prescribe their product and incentivizing them to maximize how much they prescribed. This is no longer an issue in today's society because we have regulated this interaction via the STARK law and other similar legislation.

The DEA should not have any authority over medical drugs. This used to be solely the purview of the FDA, prior to the DEAs creation, and they did a perfectly fine job of managing this. The DEA was created when we decided to start the war on drugs, which has been an overwhelming failure. The DEA having purview over drugs which are not used in the medical context is perfectly fine to me, but giving them authority over drugs used for medicine feels out of scope and rife with potential issue.

We've extensively tried to interface with lemmy devs to take the platform in directions which would help our community and our users. We've even had people from our instance do exactly what you are talking about. Throwing out advice like without asking if we've even done any work feels kind of dismissive.

If you feel strongly about making this platform better, hop on the discord or matrix channel and chip in. We'd love the help and I'm sure plenty of other folks would too.

Fantastic article highlighting the issue. Thanks!

Really hard to build a user-base when it's flat rate. Dating apps are useless if no one is in your area.

This really does not surprise me one bit. But also, nobody using these tools really cares. It reduces the amount of applications they need to review, which is often all they care about. Can't wait for the inevitable company to pop up which will do the AI equivalent of SEO stacking your resume so you can get a job.

Also, perhaps more importantly, this is just going to undo fifty years of antiracism and antisexism work. The biggest problem with AI is that it's trained on a bigoted system and when it's used to gatekeep said system, it just creates additional inequality.

Not a great start, been sick with the worst sore throat of my life for the past few days. Took a look at my tongue today and saw white spotting, so decided to go in to get it checked. Rapid strep negative but all the clinical indicators so I'm on antibiotics while the await the throat culture. This sickness has been kicking my ass. Hoping it'll get resolved soon 🤞

We've systematically destroyed competition in the market in our country by allowing consolidation to the point where only a few companies own everything. Is it so surprising that now prices are increasing?

Stop arguing about what slurs are okay to use. The only rule around here is to be nice. If someone asks you to not use a word because it hurts them, the nice thing to do is to listen.

Wow, what a constructive and useful comment. Thank you for contributing 💜💜

Yup! I immediately sent this link to anyone who's had to deal with the "throw a chatbot at it" management response

Often times they are laid off, with a generous multimillion severance package

Direct link to journal article -https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1339390/full

I am most certainly not waving hands and saying that review is enough

Apologies, that's what it sounded like to me. You said it's clickbait. You said the title would work without AI in the title. You also said that AI generation isn't relevant. That felt like diminishing the conversation - focusing in on what you're most concerned about, and dismissing all other discussions. I don't think that helps discussion happen. It discourages it. It says that we shouldn't talk about the problems present here which exist outside the realm of just the review process.

For example, both of the figures do have a description, but neither of them have any kind of attribution. The review process might ensure it is factual when it is followed and still let through material such as that you've laid out above which do not involve AI - like hiring someone off of fiverr. One way to solve this would be with image attribution. As I mentioned above, simply requiring that an image explain where it came from, such as requiring attribution to the artist who created the figure or requiring that the software used be attributed (perhaps even requiring the full prompt for generated images) are all methods through which we can ensure scientific rigor (and accurate attribution) which will both help ensure the review process catches problematic material and cues the readers in to key information about the figures present in research.

Simplifying this down to an issue of just the review process flattens out the problem that generative AI does not think in the same way that generative human content does. There's additional considerations that need to be made when considering using generative AI, namely that generative AI does not have a sum of knowledge to pull from in order to keep certain ideas in check, such as how large an object should appear and it doesn't have the ability to fact check relevancy with other objects within the image.

We need to think about these issues in depth because we are introducing a non-human, specific kind of bias into literature. If we don't think about it systematically we can't create a process which intends to limit or reduce the amount of bias introduced by allowing this kind of content. Yes, the review process can and should already catch a lot of this, but I'm not convinced that waving our hands and saying that review is enough is adequate to fully address the biases we may be introducing.

I think there's a much higher chance of introducing bias or false information in highly specialized fields where the knowledge necessary to determine if something was generated incorrectly, since generative AI does not draw upon facts or fact check, is in fact, correct. Reviewers are not perfect, and may miss things. If we then draw upon this knowledge in the future to direct additional studies we might create a house of cards which becomes very difficult to undo. We already have countless examples of this in science where a study with falsified data or poor methodology breeds a whole field of research which struggles to validate the original studies and eventually needs to be retracted. We could potentially have situations in which the study is validated but an image influences how we even think (or can acquire funding for) a process should work. Having strong protections such as requiring that AI images be clearly notated that they were created via AI, can help to mitigate these kinds of issues.

Insulting people isn't nice. The only rule on this understand is to be(e) nice. This is not appropriate behavior for our instance. You didn't need to insult someone to make your point. I'm giving you a 7 day ban to think things over.

Okay gotcha. To answer some of your questions directly:

• I mostly find dates from apps, but that's because people are my special interest. I love getting to know how humans work. They absolutely fascinate me, so getting a date means I get to learn about someone new and there's a good chance it'll turn into something longer term.
• I'm pretty activity agnostic when it comes to dates, I'm there to enjoy socializing with and learning about how people think and what knowledge they can share with me. Often times dates come with activities and that means there's other things to enjoy like a good restaurant, interesting art, connecting with nature, or whatever the date entails
• What is going on is a great question! I have no idea. I just like spending my time around people who I vibe well with and dating is a way to find them. Sometimes the vibes are mediocre but even then I get to learn how other people view the world and that's really valuable and interesting knowledge to me