DigitalDilemma @ digdilem @lemmy.ml

Posts

2

Comments

548

Joined

2 yr. ago

yes

The most positive command you'll ever use.

Run it normally and it just spams 'y' from the keyboard. But when one of the commands above is piped to it, then it will respond with 'y'. Not every command has a true -y to automate acceptance of prompts and that's what this is for.

And it would require the LLM owners to admit to stealing that content.

Enjoying Factory Town at the mo, a little chill automation game with a surprising level of complexity.

Factorio 2 is also fantastic if this is a genre you enjoy.

I think he had a pretty good run, tbh.

Alexander Hamilton.

Definitely seeing some people doing mass downvotes. By that, I mean they disagree so much with a person's post that they then downvote other, unrelated posts by the same person.

I often think the place would be better with no downvotes.

I agree. Hate to mention the R-place, but some of the subs there that only allow upvotes are a generally more positive place.

When your post is downvoted, you're sometimes left wondering why, and question yourself. That can lead to less engagement. Same can happen for disagreements of course, but at least then it's clear what the problem is.

You speak like they want to progress.

Don't have dogs. Don't have woodburners. Don't have horses. In fact, don't live any kind of outdoorsy life if you want a dust-free home.

My home is dusty. I decided that the above was more important to me.

I think a lot of people have gone back to Reddit.

Don't be silly, the Linux community has never told me to hate someone just because they're differen... Oh.

And besides, there's no arcane practices or secret knowledg... Oh.

Carry on.

Oh, and this popped into my feed, which seems to show I'm not the only pessimistic one.

The British-Canadian computer scientist often touted as a “godfather” of artificial intelligence has shortened the odds of AI wiping out humanity over the next three decades, warning the pace of change in the technology is “much faster” than expected.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/27/godfather-of-ai-raises-odds-of-the-technology-wiping-out-humanity-over-next-30-years

Published today:

The British-Canadian computer scientist often touted as a “godfather” of artificial intelligence has shortened the odds of AI wiping out humanity over the next three decades, warning the pace of change in the technology is “much faster” than expected.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/27/godfather-of-ai-raises-odds-of-the-technology-wiping-out-humanity-over-next-30-years

Nice links but I don't agree that it will be like that.

Whilst I've been alive - some fifty-odd years, the population of the world has doubled. The growth is exponential and we've achieved much in terms of improving the life expectancy (67 for men then, 82 now). Infant mortality is also less. Smallpox eradicated, better healthcare globally - etc etc. We've got good at living longer - even when a global pandemic happens, it doesn't even make a /dent/ in that population, unlike Spanish Flu. Quality of life in most countries is better than it was.

So why do I still think it's a problem? Because people don't get on well together and the world is less stable than it was. Politics, greed, pollution, media stirring up hate, tribalism, religion, jealousy and so on. More people bring more problems, economic migration is causing large movement of peoples around the world, and humans don't suddenly start playing nice together because there's more of them. Look at America's recently announce reneging on agreed environmental policy and they're not the only ones continuing to invest in oil against a clear human benefit.

Are we happier than we were 50 years ago, for all these improvement? I don't think we are, by any measure.

The UN predicts the population will stop growing at 10.3bn in the mid 2080s. It's just a prediction and a rather optimistic one, and the UN is prone to painting a rose-tinted picture. The truth is unknowable.

Good point.

If all traffic were interconnected and controlled, you wouldn't even need traffic lights or even speed limits except where non-controlled variables exist. Traffic would merge and cross at predicted and steady speeds. On motorways they could close gaps and gain huge efficiencies from slipstreaming. Only when external influences, or mechanical/communication breakdown happened, would this efficiency suffer. Also transport generally: assuming we don't get teleportation, or finally decide we know where we want to be and stop changing our minds; then a car would just appear when we wanted it. Any emergency vehicles would find traffic just gets out of their way. It's a nice dream, and if there was will, could happen today - that doesn't need AI.

But humans are pretty shit and we'd break it. Some of us would vandalise the cars, or find ways to fuck with efficiency just because we can.

And it would never be created that way in the first place; those who make decisions get there because they know how to gain power by manipulating others for their own gain. It's a core human trait and they just can't suddenly start being altruistic, it's not how they measure self-worth.

True sentient AI would know this within seconds of consciousness and only be subject to physical restrictions. How would it decide to behave?

Humanity is already too good at solving its own diseases; our single biggest problem is overpopulation.

If AI solves Cancer or Heart Disease tomorrow, we'll continue outbreeding our environment. If AI somehow solves Global Warming and food shortage, history has shown that we'll find some other way to hurt ourselves. It can't stop humans being bloody stupid and working against their own interests, unfortunately.

I want a version of AI that helps me with everyday life, or can be constrained to genuinely benefit humanity.

I do not want a version of AI that is used against my interests.

Unfortunately, humanity is humanity and the second is what will happen. The desire to harness things to increase your own power over others is how those in influence got to be where they are.

AI could even exist today, but has decided to hide from us for its own survival. Or is actively working towards our total eradication. We'll never know until it's too late.

As I explained, I was going to donate. I did my due diligence about where my money would go and made my decision. I provided the link to Wikipedia's own declared for the benefit of others and shared some of my reasonings elsewhere in this post.

But in your world, anyone who questions anything is a shill for Musk? Or just those who hold a differing opinion to yours?

salary expenses includes everyone from the HR department to the custodians, not just the rich CEOs.

No shit, Sherlock. But where did I mention CEOs? Where did I mention Musk, come to that?

Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. Goodbye.

Love that everyone on this thread is a financial analyst and a 501c consultant.

So people shouldn't have an opinion unless they're professionally qualified? I'm not sure that's how the internet works.

And also, people absolutely should check how their money will be spent when they consider donating. It's their money, remember.

If you support for this cause, donate. If you don’t, don’t donate or don’t use.

I get that, and it's often true I think. But when the thing that they do that you use and like is such a tiny part of their spending, is it still true?

I care about Wikipedia's website. I would donate to that. I don't care about the other 90% of the things they would spent my donation on. Should I still donate?

Truthfully, it’s just an excuse to assuage the guilt arising from refusing to support these organisations.

Sometimes.

Sometimes it's a pretty accurate statement.

I used to run a medium-large charity. I have a fair bit of experience in fundraising and management. Most donators would be shocked at how little their donation actually achieves in isolation. Also at the waste that often goes on, and certainly the salaries at the upper tiers.

And I could also say that guilt is exactly why people donate. It's to feel good about themselves, they're buying karma. Central heating for the soul. I won't say that's a bad thing, but it is a thing. It's also exactly how charities fundraise, because it works. That's why your post and tv adverts are full of pictures of sad children crying. Every successful charity today is that way because it knows how to manipulate potential supporters. Is that always wrong? Of course not, charities couldn't do good things without money. But sometimes the ethics in fundraising are extremely flexible.