Jomega @ Jomega @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

207

Joined

2 yr. ago

Without going too in depth, this user identified as “swarmgender”, and believed they are part of a literal hive mind.

That person was fucking with you. They were a troll and you took the bait. I hope that in the future you will be less gullible.

"Libertarian party endorses man who fought to install authoritarian dictatorship."

Whatever happened to the whole "Don't tread on me" slogan? Oh right. I forgot it was all bullshit.

Transphobe who talks like a JRPG villain. Here's a rationalwiki article about her.

Lol wat are you talking about? The amount of extractable resources on the moon itself are enough to sustain a thousand humanities

Do you have any idea how much it costs to get to and from the goddamn moon?! There's the reason we don't exactly make a regular thing about it. The costs are astronomical, pun very much intended.

The only thing that gets "used up" is energy

I'm not exactly a physicist, but if you've suddenly solved the problem of entropy then you should contact one and claim your Nobel prize. I'll wait.

But in short, other sources of entertainment + an anti natalist culture + longer lifespans + deviation from the traditional monogamous two partner model would end up lessening the need for having kids.

You're making a lot of assumptions about how how society will develop.

The bourgeoisie are evil, sure. Doesn't mean that they are stupid enough to act against their own interests.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qppZQCReiDg

We already have enough resources to get us into post scarcity

No. No we don't. This is straight delusional levels of optimism on display here. The universe is entropic by nature. Things get used up. Barring some form of miracle tech we can't even conceive of yet, it is not possible for us to have an infinite amount of anything.

However, not implementing UBI would be bad for the billionaire class.

That's the thing though. They aren't smart. We have seen time and time again that they would cut off their nose to spite their face. Why would this be any different?

When did I say that it would be a silver bullet?

Right in your first paragraph. You straight up said that AI would lead to a post scarcity future "within a few decades". Your words, not mine.

The rest of it

Okay, but still doesn't explain how we make that leap. All of us losing our jobs will not suddenly generate infinite amounts of food and resources. What's more, you seem to have a lot of confidence in the " inevitability " of UBI. There are already decades of propaganda demonizing socialism, to the point that a sizable number of people will push against it even if they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The ultra wealthy are not exactly known for their amazing foresight either, and will also push against it even if it means the collapse of civilization. For fucks sake, we can't even get them to agree that the planet we live on should be livable. One only needs to read the daily news to see dozens of examples of this very thing. And while all this pushback is going on, even if it does eventually lead to the implementation of UBI, shit is still going to suck for the people who just lost their jobs. I don't think I'm in any way unjustified in being scared for the future.

I've heard many absurdly over optimistic predictions of AI's potential, but I have to admit that "ends World hunger and solves resource depletion" is a new one. Seriously do you even know what "post scarcity" means?

This is the same website that initially outed them. Unless you can provide a less shady source, I'm not inclined to believe them.

It helps establish a motive for the killer, which is very important in a court of law. Knowing why someone did something affects sentencing, for example.

And the sensibilities of those advertisers dictate what creators are allowed to create without getting demonitized. I miss old YouTube. It felt so much more organic.

Wikipedia is a non-profit that exists for the betterment mankind. It already embodies the spirit of the fediverse, and has before the fediverse had existed as a concept. There's no reason to burn it down for the sake of rebuilding it. Not to mention that Elon would do so much damage in the time it takes to get a working site off of the ground.

I understand that AI is a complex program and not just pressing buttons. That's not the issue I have with it. My issue is, what happens when the technology improves significantly? It's my understanding that LLMs keep improving themselves by continuing to train on (often unethically) acquired data. In its present form, sure, maybe we don't have to worry. But give it 10 years or so, how much more competent will it be?

Let's look at just the film industry for a second. We already have a huge problem with Hollywood churning out franchise films at the expense of everything else. But even these cash cows are made via the vision of someone whose name is attached to it. Somebody got paid to write Halloween 36: The Final Halloween for Real This Time. That person may or may not have gave a shit about writing a good story, or they may have just wanted a paycheck. Either way, that paycheck could be used to fund something they care about much more. Once AI reaches the point where it could spit out a passable script, what incentive does Mr. Bigshot the Hollywood producer have to involve a writer at all? And because no writer is receiving a paycheck, less risks are taken in general, because risks don't guarantee profit

I might just be letting my anxieties get the better of me, and I really hope I am. I just can't seem to move past the bad feeling I'm getting from this.

The whole generative AI thing bums me out as someone who dabbles in writing, but for more philosophical reasons than the ones you listed. Storytelling is supposed to be something humans do to connect with one another. Art and culture are windows into our psyches. This, to me, is why art makes life worth living. It's why we go through the hassle of maintaining our dreary and tedious obligations, because when all that is done and over with we can sit captivated and spellbound by a good tale from a talented writer.

This? This makes little sense to me. You're telling me they made a computer program that uses pattern recognition to write and draw for us? Okay, why? This goes against what I always assumed art was for. There's more to storytelling than just pattern recognition. There's themes, emotions, metaphor, allegory, messages, politics, and so much more. A computer program doesn't understand any of that, it just follows it's programming.

Tech bros insist that AI is not going to take our jobs, but as long as we live under capitalism I don't buy it. A lot of the people who work in publishing or producing are just doing it for the money. They don't give a shit about whether the stories are good, only that they are profitable. If you don't think that they are going to jump at the chance to create product without paying anyone for it, then I have a bridge to sell you. Creators need to eat too. The phrase "starving artist" exists for a reason.

We were supposed to create robots that would handle manual labor so that we could all be free to pursue our passions. Now they have robots creating art while we continue to do manual labor. It's not the future I wanted to live in.

You should look into how much YT actually does for its "partners". It's barely anything if you aren't Markiplier tier famous, and if you do anything even mildly upsetting to the almighty advertisers (which can anything from using a curse word, to acknowledging the existence of death, to literally no reason at all in some cases) then they take away even that. That's why everyone has Patreon accounts and sponsors. Because relying on Google to provide for the people who keep their platform alive is a losing game, so they need to seek other sources of revenue than their cut of the ad money.

Funny you really think that distinction matters.

Yes, context matters. If in To Kill a Mockingbird the defendant actually did it then the book would be about defending a rapist.

These are fucking children, stop trying to force feed books with gratuitous sexual content to kids.

Buddy, it's two lousy stinking panels. If that's gratuitous to you then I don't know what to tell you. Most people can see a dick shaped object for two seconds and be fine.

If I could prove to you that this book was present at Elementary schools, what would you say?

Ok, but it isn't. You realize that it isn't, right? I'm not going to entertain this hypothetical just so that you can feel like your argument holds any water. It doesn't.

Once again you've left out critical information. Let me put this in a bulleted list.

• The censorship is hiding an important detail: the presence of a strap on. This means that the scene does not contain, as you put it, "sucking dick".
• The scene depicted is described in an intentionally unsexy way, as it turns out this isn't actually what the protagonist wants.
• The entire point of showing this is that it's the catalyst for the protagonist realizing that they are asexual. While it can be argued that it is unnecessary for this to happen on page, the fact remains that this book is intended for an audience that already knows what sex is. Nobody is putting this book in elementary schools.
• There is a big difference between sex happening and literal porn. If there wasn't, a shit ton of nature documentaries would be x-rated.
• The scene in question is 2 panels long. This is the entirety of it. This is the equivalent of the scene in The Shining, which 1. many people miss on a first viewing, and 2. fittingly enough is also depicted in an intentionally unsexy way.

But if all you care about is surface level bullshit and not the actual content of the story, then sure. We should totally Think of the Children^TM , who totally have no idea that sex exists by the time they reach a grade level that would be carrying this graphic novel (high school, ffs!), which is absolutely a part of the curriculum and not something that they check out of the library of their own free will./s

Show me the page. You can't because it doesn't exist.

Lmao, have you read Gender Queer? The protagonist comes out as asexual and mainly describes sexual topics either in the context of being uncomfortable with them or in the context of body issues. Nudity isn't automatically sexual. If I were a teen and was told this book was being removed for being pornographic, I'd feel pretty ripped off!