Touching_Grass @ Touching_Grass @lemmy.world

Posts

7

Comments

870

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't because I don't want to make it normal to do because it creates a loop hole I've seen exploited by racists. If you have a context where it's acceptable to use racist words they will use it thinking they're clever.

They'll pretend to be having a discussion about these words and slide them in as often as possible.

So avoiding it is not normalizing it so its harder to hard

Im not sure if your pro/anti point is true. Its the whole reason ads are a billion dollar industry. To counteract it there should be anti marketing movement.

Revolutions are were wealthy people seize power. If you're a megalomaniac or just losing power, use your power and influence to convince the poor to riot and then swoop in and seize control in the chaos

Why don't people bother to fight back though.

We're getting there. At one time TV was $40/month

Tell all your friends and family what a steaming pile of shit it is. Share memes that tell people its a waste of money. Lots of stuff do to

Auto correct can also fix sentence structure. You could replace every sentence with their suggestion. So what I'm trying to say is that its about how its used. A lot of people are shocked someone would use it to produce things on their behalf. I'm going the other way and saying if used correctly, what is produced is superior to things produced without it.

100% that is dumb.

But in all seriousness I think we all need a pocket lawyer.

Its one of those things that I think causes a ton if inequality. I think its too early but definitely in our lives we could all have a bunch of services in our pocket that are difficult to access now. But that's not going to happen if we don't reject this stuff as idiotic.

I watched the legal eagle video about another case where they submitted documents straight from an LLM with hallucinated cases. I can agree that's idiotic. But if there are a ton of use cases for these things in a lot of profession's that I think these types of incidents might leave people assuming that using it is idiotic.

My concern is that I think there's a lot of people trying to convince people to be afraid or suspicious of something that is very useful because they might be threatened either their career or skills are now at risk of being diminished and so they come up with these crazy stories.

I think its a good use. I think the idiotic thing is how it was used. It sounds like he didn't validate it after which might just be unfamiliar with using new tech. Might be a lawyer looking to get a new trial. Might be just pure incompetence. But I still think its a good use if used correctly

But can they use an auto correct?

But that is like saying instead of spending hours on an essay I cut the time in half with ms word. Its just a tool. If the lawyer produced arguments with it and reviewed it then what's the issue. And tbjs still doesn't determine if the work presented was good or not.

But is it a mistrial if the lawyer uses autocorrect?

If the lawyer reviewed the output and found it acceptable then how can you argue it was practicing law. I can write an argument I wantm feed it to AI to correct and improve and iterate through the whole thing. Its just a robust auto correct.

But how do you tell if the AI performed worse or better than the lawyer. What is the bar here for competence. What if it was a losing case regardless and this is just a way to exploit the system for a second trial.

I don't care about corporate lobbying because I think its useful. Lobbying is useful because its just keeping your issues to people who can do something about it.

What I don't get is why regular people don't organize and create their own lobby. I know wealthy individuals who do it to change things they don't like.

They don't stand in streets and burn energy screaming right before they get their heads caved in by police. You know what's better, paying $5 into a pool and hiring a firm to develop research and a report that you can give to a lawyer who can start to bring it to representatives.

There's a reason you never see wallstreet bankers or tobacco executives in the streets. Its not how anything gets done

You're all down voting but you know lobbying is for anyone right. Check out the link below to see an example. Would you want to remove groups like this from bringing their cause forward. Lobbying itself isn't bad. What is bad is that more people aren't using it which leaves only the corrupt ones

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/05/abortion-rights-up-lobbying-with-roe-threatened/

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/sudden-hearing-loss-dont-ignore-this-ear-emergency/

Check out way back machine to look at early YouTube and you'll find so many videos with this crap and all of them had images of crusaders because those were the groups making these videos. They were organized racist Nazi fucks who built up this imagery of a new holy war. But it was too obvious the following waves racist social media posting just hid that it was coming from these fucking losers.

LoL what are you talking about now. Is this a new issue or what.

You did start out complaining about reading.

You didn't have prior knowledge before jumping in

Instead of engaging thoughtfully/respectfully with something you figured you knew everything and responded with sassy bullshit like "you don't need an essay"

You took something you originally complained was an essay and made erroneous simplification to argue, still with foot in mouth.

You didn't fully read what was said by asking me to prove a premise that wasn't ever stated demanding I prove something to you that you misread.

I haven't called you stupid but the way you're engaging things here is

Figure it out shinobi