RidcullyTheBrown @ RidcullyTheBrown @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

207

Joined

2 yr. ago

Why would they lie about the user count? Netflix is a publicly listed company. A lie like that would be a criminal offence.

but it’s not realistic to expect someone to stay alert for an 8-hour shift where the task is as monotonous as watching a car drive itself.

It wasn't an 8 hour shift and watching the car was the actual job, come on! The driver was the tester. They were testing a system which wasn't yet ready to go untested. The accident is entirely the fault of the driver in that case.

And it's not like their reflexes were slower because of boredom. No. They were not paying any attention at all. They were watching a video. That is gross negligence and not the fault of the car or of the manufacturer.

That's called leadership. You put the right people in the right places and you don't get in their way.

And called the vaccines a big farma thing even though they were free in most countries. Including in the US...

But when the process improves and the end product is the same, it just takes less money/time to make it. So the only way common people would benefit from it is if manufacturers decided out of goodwill

The industrial revolution improved the process. Before that, for example, knives were traditionally made by a skilled blacksmith and were very expensive. After, they were made cheaply and much better and made their way in every home. Just like pots and pans. And clothing and carpets and chairs and literally all the goods which required a skilled crafstmith and were expensive and scarce became massed produced and became cheap.

Same with computers: things that were hard to make because they required skilled workforce became easy to do and cheap with automation.

It will be the same with AI: another round of things that are expensive because they require skilled labour will become cheap and available to everyone. This time it will be even more complex things than before, things that require a bit of ingenuity like medical diagnosis, maybe driving, maybe teaching, maybe writing (but more probably editing rather than writing). Think cheap basic healthcare for everyone. Think free, good, reliable public transport for everyone. Think reliable press. I don't know what form it will take and where we'll find applications for it.

It's not clear what capabilities this technology has at the moment and what is its future. However, it promises a wonderful thing: the ability to scale up for free things that couldn't be scaled because they could only be done by people and people are in short supply.

As for the work hours comparison between now and the medieval times, that comparison is not correct. It compares working hours, but doesn't add in the effort required for just living. When work is done, you have to make food from scratch always because you can't store it for too long, gather firewood, clean the firepit, bring water from somewhere, make tools, make clothing, wash and clean the house, constantly repair a host of poorly built things that require attention, a million things to do always. We really can use our down time for leisure nowadays.

That's not what I'm debating. What about healthcare? What about acces to education? What about infant death rates? What about travel? What about not having to worry about starvation? Clean water directly into your home? Hot water too? Electricity? Have these not improved the quality of life greatly? You must not know history if you think your average peasant was living a better life preindustrialisation.

I'm not sure what work you're doing at the moment but you seem pretty burned out by it. Maybe it's time for a change

Public transport should be the primary target for the technology at this time. At least in parts of Europe, the primary issue with increasing public transport capacity is lack of drivers.

It's a work computer. Stop trying to get this person fired.

Never? Are you only browsing Lemmy and Wikipedia?

Seriously, not to take anything away from what is does good, but Firefox is littered with bugs. And most websites seem to be optimised for Chrome these days which makes the Firefox experience a bit less nice.

You probably don't know history.

In what sort of social order would these people thrive in your opinion?

Those smart people could do leauges better out of a coperate environment

So why didn't they?

He got lucky with spaceX.

I think we should acknowledge his strengths. Inspiring and empowering smart people to prototype something audacious is something he is very good at. He didn't get lucky with SpaceX, he did what he is good at.

What he is bad at is the next step. And because his ego doesn't allow him to step away and let somebody else do the next step:,take a prototype and turn it into a business, his companies are doomed to be just fluff.

I'm worried SpaceX will suffer the same fate under his leadership. There's no escape from a leader with bad leadership skills.

The whole population will benefit from AI and not just people who already make way too much money like it happened with pretty much every other technological innovation right?

Humanity benefited from the invention of the printing press. Humanity benefited from the industrial revolution. Humanity benefited from the invention of computers. Humanity will benefit from AI too, greatly so. This is not what is up for debate. Some people made fortunes from it, but does that matter when you compare it to how much good it brought about?

There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick.

Then it's not valuable. The question still stands: if something is truly valuable, does it matter how it was created? You are not answering this question, you are simply pointing out why AI in your opinion cannot produce art. My question is a bit "tongue in cheek", of course. It cannot be truly answered without a specific example of creation. I'm asking it to prove a point: we're dismissing something we don't understand.

All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation

I'd argue that this is what Hollywood already does. And as you rightly argued through your comment, it brings little artistic or creative value.

If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?

But it's not the high quality content that's threatened by AI, it's the mediocre gargabe. It's the endless stream of poor quality TV shows and movies which are produced not as art, but as a means of steady predictibile income for the companies involved. That's the industry aspect of the business. This side of the business consumes most of the talent in the industry. They all know it's not good and they all hope they will get the funding to actually work on the things they know will be high quality. I think AI will allow them to do that.

Further more, this strike is not just about AI. I think this aspect is the one media outlets care most about and gets reported on more. The entertainment industry has suffered a major shift with streaming platforms and the movement of money from production studios to streaming platforms has left the employees behind. They're getting less money from streaming platforms but still do the same work. That's what the strike is about. The industry didn't care for them when it changed.

but it doesn’t change the fact that many organizations chose between those two databases plenty of times before Oracle acquired Sun.

Sure, but the choice is: can we not use Oracle and if the answer is yes, then they won't.

I understand what you're saying. I am a database engineer and have worked on several with the business model of taking customers away from Oracle/SQL server/DB2. But I wouldn't call our products competitors to those. Well, maybe SQL server but that's a different story. You can't really be competition if you can't serve the same customer base in terms of capabilities.

Also, whenever Oracle or DB2 actually wanted to keep a customer, they just made a low enough offer that made them attractive (remember they don't have a list price) and we'd be left standing. In fact, I'm pretty sure we were used several times just to get those two to make a better offer...

An inferior (in my opinion) direct competitor to MySQL.

There is no comparison between the two. They don't even compete in the same market. Oracle is an enterprise level database with features MySQL doesn't even dream of yet, whether it is security, performance or just reliability alone. The problem with it is that the company is horrible and extorts people who actually have an use case which requires them to use oracle. They've built the infrastructure in such a way that one can't just buy a database and use it by themselves, they need to buy services form the company forever. And there isn't really a fixed price for those services. Oracle basically charges as much as it thinks the client can afford.

Sun bought MySQL in 2008. Oracle bought Sun in 2009, but not for MySQL, they just kinda got it as a package deal. The real target was java. There wasn't any plan to keep developing it and MySQL wasn't making enough money on its own to be able to fund it's own growth. There wasn't some plot from Oracle to kill off MySQL, they simply didn't bother with it.

And by the way, there is a non Oracle MySQL alternative called MariaDB.

I’m honestly surprised that seemingly everyone in here supports funding the Ukraine war over looking after the American people.

But that's just it. It's not one or the other. US wouldn't have invested the funds going to Ukraine in health care or any other social welfare direction. That budget is a military budget.

US mentality is what keeps investments out of social welfare, not lack of resources. Even with the Ukrainian aid, there are enough resources to invest in infrastructure & welfare, there just isn't any political will to do so.

And, of course, you should also see that supporting Ukraine is in the advantage of the American people long term. It's basically a long term investment. Having a strong stable Europe without the constant threat from Russia is very good for business. Not to mention that when this war ends, there's a 40 million people country which needs rebuilding and there is a lot of money to be made from that.

It’s the same with Facebook. People are so addicted to it that no matter how badly they are treated they just can’t quit.

Facebook is a very different beast. It exists and thrives because it convinced people to engage personally. It's difficult to leave Facebook because family and friends are there. And Facebook also bought a lot of the competition and branched out: Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. It also has value to businesses, it has a market place, it truly is a monster.

Reddit has nothing. It doesn't know its users and most of them are really careful to keep anonymous. It has shared interests communities, but not friendships/personal relationships. It's really easy to quit Reddit if one decides to. It does not affect daily life.