Might not be popular but you dont want to restrict that type of stuff in tech, because people very quickly and easily find ways around it, usually by using new similar words that call back to the prohibited ones.
This is an area where moderation is key, and I think people might need to reconsider who they allow to send them direct messages. Especially I expect there to be a better way to vet someone who is trying to directly reach a stranger.
If you are literally going to open your door to the whole world some bad stuff will fall in, but you dont have to let them into your private areas just because they made it in the front door.
Trust networks are another idea, essentially verifying new people through acquaintances.
The article is saying that instead of hiring more people, companies are trying to use AI to get the same output with less people. This leads to lost jobs.
Its not common people are actually fired and directly replaced by AI, but what happens is the normal turnover keeps turning but they won't replace the lost jobs with as many people as before.
Personally I dont want to support any non-human created art in any field, although I think there are use cases for AI in other fields.
Why can't we analyze AI on its own merits? We dont base our decisions on whether an idea is more or less polluting than automobiles. We can look at what we are getting for what's being put into it.
The big tech companies could scrap their AI tech today and it wouldnt change most peoples lives.
We dont care about other data centers as much because we get a service in return that people want.
Most people didnt ask for or want AI, didnt agree to its costs, and now have to deal with it potentially taking their jobs.
But go ahead and keep posting idiotic and selfish posts about how you like it so much and its so fun and cool, look at my shitty song lyrics that make no fucking sense!
I'd say touch grass but the lyrics make me want to say touch instrument instead.
A majority of people have no use, nor want, AI. Just because you and a sub group of people like it, doesnt mean everyone else are idiots being misled by the media.
Why exactly so you think the media wants people to hate AI anyways? Wouldnt big corporate gain from automating news writing?
I understand the point but people are trying to change "more accurate than a gut feeling" to "the best predictive tools we have", which betrays how accurate they are.
I'm not sure anyone here would defend the methodology of these polls but they keep referencing them constantly.
I understand we have nothing else, but maybe we just can't predict the future as well as we think we can.
Well your body is just a tool your mind uses to complete tasks right? You can be objective about the tools you use can't you? You could even similarly protect your tools like your mind protects your body if you felt it necessary.
How do you decide what you can be objective about and what you can't?
Cool totally worth burning the planet to the ground for it. Also love that we are spending all this time and money to solve this extremely important problem of coding taking slightly too long.
I think when people are in that little private booth, there will be more republicans that vote for Kamala. The only thing they have to run on anymore is immigration, but thats not working as well as everyone thinks, IMO.
Yeah while I might say that your friend would be better of if the gang members had no access to guns, its not the reality: they do have guns right now.
I had not really considered concealed carry as more of a temporary solution to deal with how dangerous things currently can be, either situationally or if you become a target for whatever reason.
What would you think of some sort of requirement that someone prove they have exceptional risk to be able to have one for personal defense?
I'm not against the tool outright, power imbalances exist for sure and can be absurdly weighted.
We could probably go on and on with this, I think we both agree we want responsible well-trained use, and there has to be some way to either prove it or qualify for it.
Considering even police officers mess up gun safety from time to time, we should not just assume every average person is going to be able to figure it all out on their own.
If you think I look silly, sure. All I'm saying is all of the meat advocates that jumped to attack the OP are missing the point.
Now, why would you all misconstrue what they said so bad? Are you all seriously arguing that even close to a substantial percent of people hunt for their own food?
Maybe, just MAYBE, they weren't talking about all of you who actually have, and instead were making a point about how the vast majority of people in at least the US have not and will not hunt their own food in their lifetime. The number drops if we only consider those who actually provide for themselves with hunting rather than treat it as a sport with meat as a bonus.
No you are right, they must have literally meant that noone has ever hunted ever. That makes much more sense. Definitely doesnt say anything about your reading comprehension.
I get it, they are coming for your meat, probably your guns too. Life's rough. Keep up the good fight.
Is this just a really bad business deal followed by absurdly poor leadership, but very visible?
Did Elon make it obvious he had a completely different vision for twitter when he talked about buying it?