rand_alpha19 @ rand_alpha19 @moist.catsweat.com

Posts

0

Comments

439

Joined

1 yr. ago

I'm hoping the trend'll mostly burn itself out while people figure out how to scale due to the business model's inherent lack of sustainability and rising energy costs, but if it doesn't the least we can do is help artists defend what little they do have.

I really fear for 2D artists and indie music producers because 2D art and instrumental music seem like the easiest media to rip off without credit or compensation. Even 3D artists might not be safe depending on how good these models can get at creating 3D meshes that don't look like Eldritch homunculi.

The companies aren't really at stake here, it's the human cost and the devaluing of labour that's my personal issue.

I think it also makes it worse that people are being laid off to pay for "AI" (quotes because LLMs and ML in general are not actually real AI as understood by computer science, so yes I'm referring to LLMs here) technologies that literally require human intervention to function in the way they're advertised to.

A lot of these models output is tweaked by people in India (for example) that get paid shit wages to make sure that it didn't spit out absolute useless gibberish or straight up wrong information. The low wages don't really incentivize the worker to give a fuck, so at every level you're basically going for the minimum viable product (MVP).

Not a great foundation for the future of technology, in my opinion. These things will have to be actually useful in a practical way to not simply be a fad. Also, art theft and plagiarism are pretty real issues that are inherent to the implementation of the technology unless you only train a model on your own content, which a lot of people/companies straight up refuse to do.

To refer back to another example of tech that was overhyped, blockchain technology has like, 1 real-life use case, and that's really cool, but it's not really an earth-shattering development despite every tech bro proselytizing about it like the second coming. Laying off productive workers to focus on it was a bad move in hindsight, an obvious one. I think that will apply here too.

Brb, posting to !shirtsthatgohard@lemmy.world lol.

Cool, now you can benefit from bulk pricing agreements like Canada has been since the 1960s. Isn't a bit of effort worth it? Woo. Hope you guys can expand this quickly and make it easier to qualify, it's such a win-win.

Insurance companies can eat my ass.

Exciting new technology comes out

Companies want to profit from it without spending much

Startups, major companies, and venture capital investment groups implement new tech services quickly to capitalize on new trend

Stonks go up

Users coalesce around some major options that have actual ideas outside of "let's start a [new technology] company," most others fail to innovate or offer actual value that meets the wild expectations of speculative investors

Stonks go down, people lose their jobs, tech divisions crumble

Who could have foreseen this!? (See also: blockchain, NFTs, etc.)

Trump's lawyer fails to get the judge to recuse himself because his daughter worked with Democrats in 2020

Asks the judge to postpone sentencing (which was already postponed earlier) on the grounds of election interference on part of the judge

I understand that these are worthwhile tactics, but the context of the motions make his lawyer look like a total fool.

Okay, I'm just gonna say it... it kinda looks like he may have been sitting on this chair while bouncing aggressively on a dildo.

Like, it's just in the perfect, exact middle of the chair and the front looks all crumpled, like they were sitting near the edge.

I dunno. Just some details I noticed.

How can anyone who claims to be fucking religious think God is going to forgive all this lying and scheming?

Idk about other Christians, but for Catholics you can just say, "oops, my bad," and do penance and you're good. God's like, oh well, you asked for forgiveness so that must mean you're like, super sorry. No Hell for you, because you're baptized and awesome.

The New Testament is like one massive cope after all the rules and violence in the Old Testament. At least from what I was taught in school; I don't read that shit as an adult.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

Oh, look! Relevant history! (Hint: companies don't care about actual value if they think there's easy money to be made.)

So is it less racist if everyone's arms are restricted or if everyone can open carry? Not trying to be an asshole, I'm just not convinced that asking for guns upon entry is inextricable from racism.

Though I suppose policing an an institution in itself is pretty racist since enforcement is often done by authoritarians who are terrified of others. But that's not really exclusive to policing, unfortunately; most state institutions are racist.

Anyway, I agree with you on some level, but surely there's an answer here that doesn't subjugate specific classes of people.

Edit: Then again, it's in the interest of the state to have a monopoly on violence, so idk what to think. I'm just sick of not doing anything and not having any ideas when mass shootings happen.

Seems like from what I can find that 90% of sexually abused children in the US know their abuser, and 30% are abused by a family member.

Maybe you should read this document in its entirety for your own information.

That's a common sense gun law if I ever saw one.

Too bad the GOP has no common sense anymore, just slop rhetoric they got from some losers who want little girls to get pregnant.

Where should a just and equal society draw the line, though? A person's partner can also use Life360 (or another app) to monitor their whereabouts and prohibit them from getting a job so they can't save up money to escape - does that mean we shouldn't have phones or that tracking apps should be restricted?

In a country like the US, where voting lines can literally be 8 hours long and employers don't have to pay you while you take time during the day to vote, can you guys afford to limit mail-in voting due to extremely specific scenarios in which abuse may occur?

It appears (from my position as someone who has not been in an abusive relationship) like we could more comprehensively tackle this issue with legislation that covers more situations that are directly coercive in nature (like your mail-in ballot being tampered with, regardless of your consent).

At the same time, I am a bit of an idiot, so I do genuinely want to read your perspective about how you think things should be. I am almost certainly not considering every avenue here, given that I lack first-hand experience with abusive relationships and have only really heard stories from friends and family (some of whom do have first- or second-hand experience).

I dunno, that's why they added the "Funny" button and I see people use that all the time. Even the nearly-useless "Was this review helpful?" section on Amazon has some use to a customer making a purchasing decision.

If ML can be used to further help the issue, what's the problem? At least "AI" is being used for something that's actually trying to solve a practical issue in an attempt to improve the platform and not as an immediate way to extract maximum profit with minimum effort.

You could argue that Valve loves to automate its customer service to save money, and that would be valid and true, but I think improving the platform experience by trying to reduce (if not eliminate) unhelpful reviews is good.

Honestly, I love that my wife is a childless cat lady. It makes everything cheaper and easier. My life is better because I don't have kids, and I'm happy that we made that choice together as rational adults and that we were able to agree that this is the best path for us.

Anyone who chooses to have kids based on their values and circumstances is totally cool, whatever, as long as the kids aren't being abused or neglected, of course. That's your option and I respect it - someone has to have 'em.

But if you don't think people are capable of making the choice not to have kids and that it makes them sociopaths to not have kids, I'm pretty sure you're just an authoritarian who either hates women or has a breeding fetish. Maybe both.

Yeah, we're at a point where there's a large gap between the profit motive and the system we've basically been using for the last several hundred years (arguably thousands but that's beside the point) to build a somewhat functional society that recognizes human dignity and that people require food and shelter to survive and continue to reproduce and labour.

I think that this marks an unprecedented level of control for an ownership class that's largely out of the regulatory grasp of many nation states (developed or otherwise), and that's why unfettered capitalism seems to be quickly careening towards mass inequality despite surplus resources and many places on earth being reasonably considered to be post-scarcity.

Seems like the myth of constant growth is a religion these days and the mandatory tithes of the common people are no longer able to prop up the church, if you'll excuse a ham-fisted comparison.

If there's no modern New Deal or progressive taxation reform incoming, expect mass defaults and a stock market overcorrection that leads to a significant recession. Not sure when, but probably in the next decade given how even moderately wealthy people (around $100k+/year for a single adult) seem to be legitimately struggling to pay their mortgages.

Yeah, I understand that. But if there's a measurable difference between the efficacy of the 2 pills that even the patient is obviously aware of, why does that warrant extreme caution versus another pill that doesn't have this effect?

Like why is it better to have a study in which the patient literally can't tell the difference between treatments? Why is it not detrimental for a federal agency to unilaterally dismiss this?

I understand that people online aren't obligated to engage with me thoughtfully, but I was hoping for an actual explanation that is longer than 50 words from someone who is more knowledgeable than me regarding the validity of scientific experiments as they relate to pharmaceuticals.

But why is that such a problem that it's worth rejecting what is otherwise widely considered an effective treatment?

I am fundamentally not understanding the inherent risk to patients resulting from the structure of the study that is apparently so harmful that it must not continue.

Why is being able to tell that your medication is working a negative thing in a study? And such a negative thing that it apparently negates all other positive aspects of the medication.

Yeah, they don't usually encompass the whole city, just the Jewish communities. Eruvs aren't really necessary if you aren't following Halacha (Jewish custom/religious law). Plus it's a big deal if it's broken, and it's less likely to be broken if it's smaller and easier to maintain.