masterspace @ masterspace @lemmy.ca

Posts

4

Comments

2,065

Joined

2 yr. ago

This part of the chain is me calling out. your false equivalence as you compared graffiti to river dumping which you keep trying to claim isn’t invalid

Because I never claimed they were equivalent, I said that river dumping laws are an example of how to make something illegal, after your dumb ass claimed it was impossible to make advertising illegal because it's been around for a long time.

It seems really easy. You ban companies from paying for product placement.

If someone talks about it organically they can.

There's no grey area there.

I'm not being sophisticated, I'm trying to keep you on track.

If you want to have a different argument about whether or not advertising is deserving of jail sentences, steep GDPR level fines, slaps on the wrist, or nothing, that's fine, we can have that one.

But this reply chain was about whether or not it's possible to make advertising illegal, which it is.

Lol.

You are aware that newspapers and magazines currently exist that are entirely behind paywalls right?

Both private subscriptions exist, as does government funding.

It is entirely possible to exist in a world that both has the BBC and has The Guardian...

Regulate and ban astroturfing campaigns. When corporations are caught doing so, have the penalties be similar to illegal dumping and include jail time for executives.

Then you can ban paid product placement.

Yes, we're talking about making advertising illegal, which would change advertising to be illegal, similar to how pollution is illegal.

You seem to be arguing that it would be impossible to make advertising illegal because you wouldn't pass laws to make advertising illegal....

That's not a false equivalency, that's you just insisting that advertising's not that bad and shouldn't be illegal. Nothing about your feelings on whether or not it should be illegal changes whether or not we could make it illegal.

In both situation you make it illegal for corporations to do something, and punish them with fines and criminal sentences for executives if they're caught doing so, leading to a decrease in that behaviour.

So what about the situations do you see as different that makes it a false equivalency?

Yeah, and it used to be legal to dump your industrial waste in the river, now it's not.

Laws change.

The AI technofacists building these systems have explicitly said they've hit a wall. They're having to invest in their own power plants just to run these models. They have scores of racks of GPUs, so they're dependent upon the silicon market. AI isn't becoming "ever more capable," it's merely pushing the limits of what they have left.

While I agree that this paper sounds like a freshman thesis, I think you're betraying your own lack of knowledge here.

Because no, they havent said they've hit a wall, and while there are reasons to be skeptical of the brute force scaling approach that a lot of companies are taking, those companies are doing that because they have massive amounts of capital and scaling is an easy way to spend capital to improve the results of your model while your researchers figure out how to make better models, leaving you in a better market position when the next breakthrough or advancement happens.

The reasoning models of today like o1 and Claude 3.7 are substantially more capable than the faster models that predate them, and while you can make an argument that the resource / speed trade off isn't worth it, they're also the very first generation of models that are trying to integrate LLMs into a more logical reasoning framework.

This is on top of the broader usage of AI that is rapidly becoming more capable. The fuzzy pattern matching techniques that LLMs use have literally already revolutionized fields like Protein Structural Analysis, all the result of a single targeted DeepMind project.

The techniques behind AI allow computers to solve whole new classes of problems that werent possible before, dismissing that is just putting your head in the sand.

And yes companies are still dependent on silicon and energy, which is why they're vertically integrating and starting to try and produce that on their own. That's not a sign that they see AI as a waste of time.

The fact that they dodged questions of durability and did nothing to reassure says that they're probably identical and Nintendo just enjoys the revenue it gets from people buying more joycons.

“During a counterterrorism activity in the area of Turmus Aya, IDF soldiers identified three terrorists who hurled rocks toward the highway, thus endangering civilians driving,” the Israeli army said in a statement.

“The soldiers opened fire toward the terrorists who were endangering civilians, eliminating one terrorist and hitting two additional terrorists.”

How the fuck does anyone defend Israel when they are literally gunning down children for throwing rocks at cars.

What the honest fuck. I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could support Israel after they have committed atrocity after atrocity.

Lmao, this is absolute defeatist nonsense.

"You've gotta help us doc, we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas".

Because here's the thing, you literally just can ban advertising. Ban billboards, ban tv Ads, ban social media advertising.

You can still have companies publish information about their product, but that's not what advertising is in the context of this discussion.

It's also a form free market distortion that actual economic conservatives should hate.

Rather than having firms compete for who can make the best product or service, advertising instead lets them compete based on who can best psychologically manipulate the population en masse.

It's a "rich get richer" mechanic that any halfway competent dev would've patched out for balance reasons a long time ago.

And to make sure that everyone is portrayed by glen powell

You could but you'd be drawing a false equivalency.

Copilot web is honestly better than Google these days.

Do you have any resources by any chance that explain the difference well?

I work in high level software, so understand the benefit of doing things at ide time vs compile time vs runtime, and I've coded in assembly back in the day and understand instruction sets at a very rough level, but I'm not really familiar with specifically what differentiates RISC / ARM / x64, or why RISC's reductions would be good / bad / what trade-offs come with them.

The answer is no, and has been no for a while.

Lol Dean Blundell the shock jock? Is this audio legit? Has anyone vetted that it's not faked?