I could swear I remember a similar story at some big tech company where a guy was hired on at like 5x the intended salary due to a fat finger on the input field, and it took them years to realize
ability to make decisions based on arbitrary gut feelings, then blame everyone under you when things go wrong
ability to take 1 sentence of meaningful info and turn it into a full press release filled with nonsense and buzz words
general inability to actually produce anything with consistent quality without requiring high levels of supervision
costs hundreds of millions of dollars per year
As far as I can tell, the only one of those that chatGPT doesn't already do is the last point, and I guess you could just light the money on fire (or if you wanna get really crazy, use it to increase worker pay)
The answer is still the same. Which is the very obvious fact that Isreal can afford to defend themselves, while Ukraine can't. As well as the fact that Ukraine is going up against a much larger, and stronger invading force - whereas Isreal is going up against a group with no real economy or traditional military.
Its almost like global politics are nuanced and you can't make blanket statements about what is and isn't justified using just a single sentence and expect them to apply to be every situation
I don't disagree, but I doubt either side would agree. Certainly the Israels wouldn't. They've got the most international support, the superior military, and (most importantly) this war let's them do what they've wanted to do for almost a century now, wipe them out and claim all their land for themselves. They've got everything to gain and really not all that much to lose except their humanity - and countries rarely optimize their wartime strategies for that.
I just want to point out that bigger stronger countries stepping in to "soothe the conflict" between two smaller countries has worked basically 0 times throughout all of history in the long run.
Not necessarily - some income requirements are kind of crazy, like they need your rent to be less than 20% of your takehome income.
Especially nowadays with rent being more expensive than ever and generally making up a bigger portion of people's budget than before (by necessity), it's not that uncommon to spend half or more of your take home on rent. Especially somewhere like NYC
Lemmy is far better than Reddit regarding the use of downvotes, but many people still use it as an emotional disagreement button rather than something used to hide useless/irrelevant content
I don't know if I'd agree at all with the idea that Lemmy is any better, in my experience, people still use the downvote button as an "I Disagree" button 99% of the time. There's less people here, so it's less pronounced (you'll get -9 instead of -300 for expressing an against-the-grain opinion), but the pattern is still just as present
theoretically they could provide an embedded video link I suppose and the centralized viewer could use that.
The trouble is that most content creators like RT aren't going to want that either, because the whole point is that they want to be able to serve ads and whatnot to pay the bills - plus they'd very much prefer people go to their site so that they continue watching RT content, instead of just watching one thing and moving on. Ultimately the "perfect" solution is going to have to strike a middle ground between what consumers want and creators need
And I don't disagree that it will fail, but the fact that it's happening in the first place makes it significant and so worth talking about. Whether or not its a good idea, companies all over the world are exploring ways to replace human labor with these products, and thats what makes it significant.
^They really haven't had much of an impact beyond people talking about them all the damn time, especially the fear mongering. At present, these are really just expensive toys. Computer image and gibberish generators.
I highly disagree. Almost everyone I know under the age of 40 uses LLMs to some extent in the course of their job already, whether it's as simple as composing emails or as significant as using copilot/chatGPT to code. And just today I read an article about an entire call center getting laid off this week to be replaced by an LLM.
I completely agree that a lot of the hype is overblown, but "AI" is absolute significant in our society, and so we talk about it
I guess it comes down to whether the courts decide to view AI as a tool like photoshop, or a service - like an art commission. I think it should be the former, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the dinosaurs in the US gov think it's the latter
Frankly, when I was in high school - cost was never the issue in whether a couple used condoms, and even in my relatively conservative area, there were local programs that would give out free condoms if you cared enough to look
Better sex education would go a much longer way imo - because even in California our sex Ed (this was like a decade ago, so maybe it's changed) was full of "abstinence only" garbage - thankfully the teachers were usually smart enough to go off book and give realistic advice/answers
The caste one he argued that there are already laws in place that cover it, and that what we need instead is to increase education about these existing laws and how they can be used to prevent caste discrimination. There is no point in creating another law that does the exact same thing as existing anti discrimination laws.
For decriminalizing mushrooms he argued that the bill doesn't actually include any provisions for how the medical usage can be implemented or how the required infrastructure can be put in place. When CA was medical only for weed it was frankly a shit show for a long while because it was highly unclear what was actually allowed and what wasn't, he didn't want a repeat.
Whether you agree with either of those arguments is an entirely different question, but the titles of been seeing make it seem like he's just shooting them down for fun - hence my suspicion that this is astroturfing.
One of two things is true - either over the last week he's inexplicably gotten a ton of really controversial bills crossing his desk that are all more newsworthy than anything else over the last few years, and he vetoed every single one. Or half-assed bills like these pass this desk all the time and get vetoed pending better solutions, and they're only now getting overblown coverage as part of a smear campaign. Frankly the latter seems more likely
Serious question - why should anyone care about using AI to make 9/11 memes? Boobs I can see the potential argument against at least (deep fakes and whatnot), but bad taste jokes?
Are these image generation companies actually concerned they'll be sued because someone used their platform to make an image in bad taste? Even if such a thing we're possible, wouldn't the responsibility be on the person who made it? Or at worst the platform that distributed the images -As opposed to the one that privately made it?
Why did no one care about the misuse of the term AI until these image generators or LLMs? Seriously, people have been talking about video game "AI", chess "AI" and stuff like that. It's understood that when people say "AI" they don't mean "general machine intelligence" or anything like that. And frankly LLMs and image generators fit the bill better than most of the things we've used the term for previously
As for "can we stop talking about them", these and LLMs are already having some pretty huge impacts on modern society - for better or worse, it'd be pretty odd for us all to decide to just stop talking about them.
100%