Signtist @ Signtist @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

Republican voters will accept it wholeheartedly simply because a Republican suggested it. Then they'll view themselves as heroes who made a huge sacrifice for the good of the country when really none of this needed to happen and the country's just getting worse. Of course, when they actually get to retirement age they'll be confused and angry as to why THEY can't retire yet; after all, they're heroes!

I always wanted to learn how to play piano. I absolutely love the sound, but I'm missing several fingers, and I know it'd be really disheartening to always have a bunch of music I'd never be able to play due to not being able to hit all the keys for complex chords.

Wait, so Steam isn't even actually on the picture? I feel like they could've just circled any original logo and made the joke about that instead.

It took me a few glances to realize that's not chewed gum stuck in the keyboard.

Stupid cosmetic designs have been an issue for a long time. There was a theater fire in Chicago in the early 1900's where a bunch of people died because they couldn't figure out how to use the fancy door handles while panicking and being crushed by everyone trying to get out. That's the reason why exit doors on buildings with a high occupancy are now required to swing out, and have those pushbar locks that allow the door to open even if you're just falling on it.

If it's possible that someone will need to use something while panicking, it needs to be as simple, intuitive, and failproof as possible

The word "theory," when used in a scientific context, indicates a well-established idea supported by an immense amount of peer reviewed data. While I understand that many people use the word "theory" to mean "random unsupported thought," the use of the word in that context is just as egregious as the use of the word "literally" to mean "figuratively."

And while you're right that MatPat's videos were anything but scientific, you're wrong that it was obvious; I've heard plenty of people recommend his videos to me, describing his channel as "taking a scientific approach to video games," which is another way in which his videos downplayed the stringent work that the scientific process requires to be accurate and valid.

We live in a time where, in spite of abundant access to information, an alarming amount of people legitimately believe that climate change doesn't exist, that vaccines cause autism, and that the world is flat. We can't afford to be even tangentially undermining the authority of the scientific process.

My mom's one of the youngest boomers, born in December 1964. She's 59. Still fits the boomer stereotype to a T, though.

He was a decent youtuber, but I was always irked by his propagation of the "That's just a theory" phrase. I get that it was just a tagline, but it still inadvertently promotes the downplay of the scientific process.

I mean, I'm only 30 and my parents are boomers. They weren't even that old when they had me. - I'd imagine there's plenty of early-20's kids running around with boomer parents.

My wife loves these. I'd never had one before I met her, and I never will again now that I have. I've never eaten something so bland, yet so sickly sweet, and my sister and I used to eat bowls of straight sugar when our parents weren't around.

Oh, I'm sure they'll patch anything that gets exposed, absolutely. But that's just it - there are already several examples of people using AI to do non-brand-friendly stuff, but all the developers have to do is go "whoops, patched" and everyone's fine. They have no need to go out of their way to pay people to catch these issues early; they can just wait until a PR issue happens, patch whatever caused it, and move on.

Ah, I see. It's true that these issues cast a negative light on AI, but I doubt most people will even hear about most of them, or even really understand them if they do. Even when talking about brand security, there's little incentive for these companies to actually address the issues - the AI train is already full-steam ahead.

I work with construction plans in my job, and just a few weeks ago I had to talk the CEO of the company I work for out of spending thousands on a program that "adds AI to blueprints." It literally just added a chatgpt interface to a pdf viewer. The chat wasn't even able to actually interact with the PDF in any way. He was enthralled by the "demo" that a rep had shown him at an expo, that I'm sure was set up to make it look way more useful than it really was. After that whole fiasco, I lost faith that the people in charge of whether or not AI programs are adopted will actually do their due diligence to ensure they're actually helpful.

Having a good brand image only matters if people are willing to look.

I highly doubt that OpenAI or any other AI developer would see any real repercussions, even if they had a security hole that someone managed to exploit to cause harm. Companies exist to make money, and OpenAI is no exception; if it's more profitable to release a dangerous product than a safe one, and they won't get in trouble for it, they'll likely have no issues with releasing their product with security holes.

Unfortunately, the question can't be "should we be charging them for this?" Nobody is going to force them to pay, and they have no reason to do it on their own. Barring an entire cultural revolution, the question instead must be "should we do it anyway to prevent this from being used in harmful ways?" And the answer is yes. Our society is designed to maximize profits, usually for people who already have money, so if you're working within the confines of that society, you need to factor that into your reasoning.

Companies have long since decided that ethics is nothing more than a burden getting in the way of their profits, and you'll have a hard time going against the will of the companies in a capitalist country.

It's the year 1.7×10¹⁰⁶. The heat death of the universe is imminent. Still listening to this banger. Modern music sucks - I was born in the wrong generation. Like if you agree.

This is the issue. I really don't think that politics "accidentally" got to the point that it has. Politicians love power, and some of the best ways to stay in power are to rile your supporters up to near-fanatical levels, as the republicans did, or to have people in a situation where they feel forced to support you, as the democrats are currently enjoying. Regardless of who orchestrated it, I'm sure both parties are ecstatic about the state of the US political climate.

Too late, I already sent it. She loved it.

She's my buttery snacc.

If it comes down to it, I'll split the cost with you. If we can't get socialized medicine the way it's meant to be, we'll make it ourselves!

I honestly can't tell if sending this to my wife would go over very well or very poorly.

Well, Bleem went down under the weight of Sony's lawsuits, just like Yuzu did with Nintendo's. Sony didn't even win any of their lawsuites against Bleem in the end, but constant legal trouble is usually too much for small startups to handle. The US's legal system essentially allows any company to duel any other, with legal funds as the weapon of choice, and the bigger weapon wins every time. Legality doesn't matter unless both companies can truly afford to fight the battle to the end, and emulators will likely never have that power. So all we can do as consumers looking for options is to try not to talk about the little guys so much that one of the big guys feels it's necessary to bury them to death with lawsuits.