Umbrias @ Umbrias @beehaw.org

I exist or something probably

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

602

Joined

2 yr. ago

the most useful takeaways are the current statistics, predictions about ai spreading because of demand are largely unfounded anymore. but even at current hype bubble usage it's an absurd amount of energy.

if you browse the play store on a web browser you can open app links directly to bypass this. for now.

problem: actual mental help has low availability

solution: ai can stand in where needed

outcome: ai mental health systemically expands while actual therapists remain inaccessible, as insurance refuses to cover them. mental health outcomes systemically worsen across the board.

Hm, that is unexpected. obviously that doesnt include the full manufacturing carbon cost of a rocket but it's probably close enough anyway.

not even a little, but matrioshka brains are cool

i highly doubt 10 years is even remotely close to breaking even on a rocket launch.

many techbros think this unironically and do hire preferentially asian male employees. google famously got in trouble for this.

homeostasis as a word certainly existed at this time, but in the biological sciences, and means a system which is self regulating. Im sure that would have changed their opinion on the piece somewhat had they found out.

warm summer, and bad food prices. the regime expects protests to be historic too.

have you considered for a moment, i know it's crazy, that two authoritarian states historically gnashing at the bit to go to war might be doing this of their own volition?

that case specifically did not ultimately have broad implications, but similar cases largely affirmed that vendors can refuse clients based on speech they disagree with. however generally these cases have simply danced around the issue. The general implication seems to be you can't simply discriminate against people based on their identity, but you can refuse to associate with speech content which you disagree with. this isnt set in stone exactly but it seems like this:

You cant refuse to make cakes for black people, but you can refuse to make cakes which say "BLM", or in the other direction, refuse to make maga cakes, or cakes with swastikas. Can you refuse to cater for say, the rnc? i would imagine so, but it technically isnt addressed that i saw. Can you refuse to cater for a known nazi? Maybe? Probably not technically just by them being a nazi.

what a strangely passive aggressive and rude response. if you want a comment written in your voice and chosen thoughts, you are free to do so.

This is (deploying malware and backdoors outside of wartime, often widely) criticisized very often and rightfully so. By both cybersecurity people and various political leanings, especially leftists.

Your analogy is good. These things are often intended to kill, and are often countervalue (read: target civilians). It is in fact bad no matter what state does it. It however should also come as no surprise that all states variously want to, though for example the usa has historically gone back and forth on how selective they are for many of the reasons you state. Though other reasons include things like not revealing exact capabilities by releasing malware ahead of time to be spotted and studied.

It is not a privelege, it is something being deprived from people by an ever increasingly fascist state. You do not fix a problem by copying it, the other user argued for disenfranchisement, for genocide.

Somehow on beehaw, arguing that it's mass disenfranchisement or mass executions of roughly a third of the united states, over 100 million people, is fine for some reason. injustice now is not solved by injustice tomorrow, and any person who argues for mass genocidal disenfranchisement is, in fact, a fascist.

absolutely not, nobody should ever be barred from democracy. out of the question find another policy to advocate.

fascism to retaliate against fascism is flatly fucking stupid.

participation in democracy and governance is not a privelege.

are you suggesting barring trump voters from democracy, because no fuck that.

if you put the people making translation possible out of work, you will run out of sources for useful translations.

LLM are not magic. They function off of human effort for thir training data. High quality data is thus, sourced from (in this case) human translators. Some can be done without them by nonprofessional texts, but it is not enough.

they cant actually but it's convincing enough that you'll think it's the same, and in the process make it financially impossible for improvements to be made by actual translators.

Yes we agree on the first part.

I will again direct you here re: the second.

Where is the world model you maintain? Can you point to it? You can't - because the human mind is very much a black box just the same way as LLM's are.