realharo @ realharo @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

304

Joined

2 yr. ago

The real role of current-gen AI in politics should be mainly summarizing the text of laws and bills, so even people who don't have the time to read everything can stay more or less in the picture, and ask specific questions about the text.

"Fancy" features like group chats, or sending pictures that don't look like ass?

When every single alternative (other than RCS, ironically enough) just plain works. People just text, send each other pictures, participate in group chats, and it all just works, no matter the phone, computer, whatever, there are even just plain websites for many services.

Better than the US, at least in Europe you are not forced to buy a specific device just to be able to communicate.

Who knows, if Facebook gets severely limited by these laws, maybe we'll all switch to Signal or something.

That's only true for people who don't care about operating lawfully. A big company cannot practically afford to do the same things as some random fly under the radar niche community.

That being said, this is a US company, so that may be a problem.

That's how they get you to click it. Leaving out the part you want to know is the oldest trick in the clickbait book.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

• George W. Bush

Barely hanging on in the post-AI wasteland.

Iraq paid for those schools (a 2021 deal is referenced, where this was in exchange for oil - a fact the article specifically avoids mentioning).

This is essentially an article about someone ordering a product, paying for it, and getting it delivered.

This is supposed to be the "world news" community.

And housing.

Because Windows on ARM is already a thing with some momentum.

Also, Nvidia has made ARM chips in the past.

Now you're just cherry picking some surface-level similarities.

You can see the difference in the process in the results, for example in how some generated pictures will contain something like a signature in the corner, simply because it resembles the training data - even though there is no meaning to it. Or how it is at least possible to get the model to output something extremely close to the training data - https://gizmodo.com/ai-art-generators-ai-copyright-stable-diffusion-1850060656.

That at least proves that the process is quite different to the process of human learning.

The question is how much those differences matter, and which similarities you want to focus on.

Human learning is similar in some ways, but greatly differs in other ways.

The fact that you're picking and choosing which similarities matter and which don't is just your arbitrary choice.

How is training AI with art on the web different to a person studying art styles?

Human brains clearly work differently than AI, how is this even a question?

The term "learning" in machine learning is mainly a metaphor.

Also, laws are written with a practical purpose in mind - they are not some universal, purely philosophical construct and never have been.

Let's be real, the only reason why the vast majority of people are in it is wanting to get rich by selling it at a higher price to someone in the future.

The term currency is kinda misleading, it's really more like a commodity whose only purpose is price speculation on exchanges.

A lot of people think they have empathy, but for many of them it's very limited when it comes to other people who are not similar enough to the person themselves (or people close to them). E.g. people from a different background or socioeconomic class.

Empathy often ends wherever a person's perceived "tribe" ends.

First step would be tagging posts/comments, to clearly separate ones meant as pure opinion from ones meant as a factual claim. Then tagging for sourced/unsourced/disputed/misleading/omitting crucial details, etc. claims. Then tagging things like how confident the poster feels about what they're saying (e.g. from "I heard it somewhere" to "I've seen it with my own eyes on multiple occasions")

Then you would need easy to inspect metadata showing the sourcing chain all the way to the origin. And ability to comment on that (e.g. if some source's claims are misinterpreted and the source doesn't actually claim the thing).

Then you would need the people to actually care about facts, even if the facts go against their existing beliefs or preferences.

Also people need to be able to think more with varying degrees of uncertainty built-in, not just "this is definitely true"/"this is definitely false" (unless there is enough material to back that up).

But if you read all the answers you may find an up to date suggestion in the comments of a non-accepted answer.

Honestly this is not bad, if it solves your problem and it took less than 10 minutes of reading overall.

Plus you gain some understanding along the way, about why the other answers aren't going to solve your problem, which is also valuable.

Lower resolution screens would kill half of their advertised use cases.

The fact that other people they know also use it.

The app itself is pretty much the same as any other modern messaging app, but network effects are everything when it comes to messaging services.

This is why you see entire countries where everyone has WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger or Telegram, depending on what other people in the country are using.

It won’t really matter, because there will continue to be other sources.

Other sources that will likely also block the scrapers.

It doesn't matter if only BBC does it. It matters if everyone does it.

What incentive do the news sites have to want to be scraped? With Google, they at least get search traffic. OpenAI offers them absolutely nothing.