The fact that I can open up ChatGPT right now and say "Write a Kotaku article about why Tetris is racist" and get a 100% believable result out of it should be a sign that they've been replaceable for a while now.
I also think it's botched Markdown but from the opposite perspective. When you have many points that end up parsed as several separate 1-item lists, you can write 1. 2. 3. and it will make it 1. 1. 1. since each list only has one point.
It's the training data. Every list the bot has ever seen has had the number 1 in it. All other numbers come up less than that.
The bot also has no memory of what it wrote before, and no clue what it will write next. It simply guesses what the next word will be based on what the last word was.
Another failure of these bots, they're Pre-Trained. It's the "p" in the name. So anything they generate will be based on the training data, with no changes to the algorithm based on interacting with users. You can "convince" the bot of anything and the second you close that browser window, the bot basically resets to factory defaults.
Lmao it's awesome, I haven't read Kotaku in ages, so I don't know if it sounds Kotaku-y enough, but holy damn I can totally imagine a human nutjob writing that shit
This sounds exactly like something Kotaku would write:
One of the key criticisms leveled at Tetris is the lack of diversity in its visual representation. The game predominantly features blocks of different shapes and colors, but the absence of any explicitly diverse or racially inclusive elements raises questions. In a world that is culturally diverse, the omission of representation within the game can be seen as a missed opportunity to promote inclusivity.
@Helldiver_M That reads exactly like a typical dumb shit Kotaku article. No wonder, because it was trained from human data. I don't know what's more shocking, that our News outlets by human is so bad we think a robot wrote it, or if the AI is that good that we think a human wrote it. Both perspectives are frightening.
Yet, there always has been a good journalism, either very quality reviews describing well the game in question, or very funny articles making fun of a game that is otherwise boring or bad.
I'm not saying the magazines of the time were totally devoid of good gaming coverage. Video Games and Computer Entertainment was a solid, substantial read... the layout was nothing special, but the writing was pure quality. Kind of helped that they were writing articles for adults and not edgy fourteen year olds, or nine year olds hopped up on sugar.
WTF that is a whole load of baloney, it's hilarious. Also a good reminder for us who lean left to remember to be critical when discussing such things too.
Believable as in imitates the writing style, sure, but what's the point if it's factually incorrect?
From the article:
The company joins a growing number of media entities experimenting with the technology [...] These trials have already led to a flood of error-laden, plagiarized, and poorly written content due to badly implemented — and, some would argue, inherently unsuited AI models — that still have a strong tendency to make up facts.
Hate on Kotaku all you want but they don't make shit up as often as AI does
I have found that one of the more effective ways to use ChatGPT for writing is to not just tell it "write me an article about..." But to give it a list of all the facts and basic arguments you want to include in the article and then tell it to use those. Takes more work to gather those bits of information ahead of time, but not a lot more work - you could basically do a bunch of Googling and copy and paste bits and pieces of what you find to use as your starting data.
To be fair, Kotaku does sometimes make shit up. Like the Persona 5-Smash crossover lyrics being ableist thing. And they tried to double down on it for awhile if I recall right.
And yes, ChatGPT makes shit up all the time. More often then Kotaku.
I know in a post gamergate world, we need to be diligent for things like dog-whistles. And hating on Kotaku is arguably in dog-whistle territory. I guess in my opinion Kotaku is so bad, that we should be able to safely mock the crap out of them. I'm even more happy to mock any chuds that want to keep non cis-white-males out of games. They just weren't relevant for this occasion.
For those not reading the story, which appears to be many, the company that services the implant went bankrupt. The implant was experimental. There exists no one to service it any longer. It will pose a health risk down the road without someone servicing it.
The only thing that forced her to have the implant removed is the fact that it would eventually lead to her untimely death if it remained in with no one to take care of the device.
@IHeartBadCode@flumph this is why we can't have Musk offering brain implants through his "Neurolink" company. He'll be busto and presumably in jail in the next 5 years. Thus, anything he tries to implant will be out of warranty. Musk is the biggest ponzi of all time.
Even if her death is guaranteed by leaving it in (and I’m not sure it is without more information), does that make it ethical to remove? Perhaps the patient would prefer a shorter life with greater quality in regards to her seizures. After all, don’t we allow and accept cancer patients to forgo treatment and enjoy the time they have left?
Frankly the articles I’ve found all use a mix of really weird language. In some places it says she was ‘advised’ to remove it by doctors, which makes a lot of sense. In others they talk about finances and purchasing the implant from the company.
My guess is that it was a combination of factors and while she ultimately did not want to give up the device despite being urged by doctors (she accepted the risk of leaving it in), but she was robbed of the possibility by capitalism and the fact that the company was forced to liquidate assets as terms of going bankrupt or being bought by another company. But we might have to wait for a court case or proper reporting to find out.
I hope we are able to enshrine some rights over forced explantation in the future. As soon as a device is implanted in you, you should own it 100%, no matter the cost of the device. To encourage making this possible even for extremely expensive devices, we should probably offer huge write offs or some other incentive to these companies lest they decide to restrict their purchase to only rich clients.
One of the articles suggests that the device was removed because the batteries were no longer available and nearing end of life.
Regardless, a surgeon is only going to maintain devices approved by the FDA or cleared for investigational use. If the company goes bankrupt then both are no longer the case.
There’s another article that explains that it wasn’t just the battery. After the company went under, there was nobody who could provide support for the product in the event of malfunction. Removal was recommended as the safest course.
This isn’t an “FDA problem”. The device was investigational, which means it did not have final FDA approval. Consequently, there is no guarantee that a surgeon would have the knowledge to maintain it. Surgeons are not expected to be familiar with every experimental device, in fact most surgeons will never touch any experimental device.
And no, surgeons aren’t just going to read a bunch of documentation to get up to speed. Typically, when a new product launches the manufacturer will send their technical representatives into the operating room to help troubleshoot any issues.
Yeah I don’t think this is a coding issue. This is something on your brain and if the hardware requires maintenance you better have qualified surgeons that know and understand the device. Of that’s no longer possible because the producer no longer exists then it’s maybe not a bad idea to have it removed, depending on some factors of course like “how long does she have left to live” and “how much does she suffer.eithout the device”.
Why would a medical device exist such that even with documentation a surgeon unaffiliated with the company cannot safely interact with it? You would think it would be a design priority for any maintenance to be straightforward and with clear instructions. I have a hard time imagining that the problem here is anything other than proprietary information being tied up in red tape.
Oh I agree with you, but that requires laws being written correctly. Healthcare being what it is currently in the USA, I very much believe that the women was better off with the device removed.
FDA approval is contingent on so many factors that even if it was entirely open source, including all hardware design and the instructions for assembly, maintenance, and manufature it would be entirely plausible for it to lose approval if the company responsible for continued development went bankrupt.
Without approval, no reputable surgeon will do anything beyond remove it.
A device not having a clear and unambiguously documented path for addressing defects found in the future is more than sufficient reason to lose approval.
I guess I don’t see how a surgeon being unwilling to do maintenance on a non-FDA approved medical device is fucked up.
If it fails to meet the criteria for being safely used in a medical context, it’s irresponsible to try to maintain it.
Code and documentation mean someone could theoretically maintain it, but the average consumer could not. You need someone with the knowledge, time, equipment, etc. to think it’s worth their while to learn how to maintain it. In the case of a physical device that also means the ability to manufacture spare parts, some of which could be very exotic. For an experimental medical device, it also includes detailed medical knowledge that most doctors don’t have. And actually working on it means being willing to take the risk of killing someone if you screw up.
I doubt the person in the article would be helped in the slightest by receiving code and documentation.
This, right here, is really important. We already have otherwise useful things being bricked because the software is no longer updated, or worse, the company goes bankrupt. If that’s our future with brain implants, that’s going to be a big problem.
Doctors remove unsafe implants and/or replace them with safer versions all the time, including devices like deep brain stimulators. I don’t see why you consider this to be a big problem.
There was a medical reason, the device was considered unsafe. Any experimental device is considered unsafe without monitoring, and monitoring was no longer available. That’s why she chose to have it removed.
Anyone who signs up for a clinical trial knows that their treatment can be discontinued at any time, even if it is helping them. For example, if an implant is helping you but is found to be harming other people, it may be considered unsafe and you may be advised to remove it. In fact, a different article suggested that other patients were experiencing adverse effects from this experimental implant. This might even be why the company couldn’t get their product approved and eventually lost funding.
I mean, we should protect against that too by requiring a certain level of service. But at the very least they need to own the device and have the right to leave the device in, even if it would fail or potentially cause them harm. I pointed that out because it sounds like they wanted to leave it in and not listen to the doctors advice to remove it, but could not for some reason. The only reason I can imagine would involve someone paying for the surgery to remove it against her will is one in which she does not own the device and the alternative is being burdened with a massive debt to pay off the device.
How do you require a certain level of service when the company that made it goes out of business? Or when employees with essential knowledge leave the company? I’ve been working in software for a long time, and everywhere I’ve worked, losing someone knowledgeable about a product is a big blow to future development because a lot of important knowledge is only in their head, leaving future maintainers to do a lot of reverse engineering. Requiring documentation wouldn’t work because any company that had strict enough requirements would have a very hard time hiring engineers willing to spend so much time documenting every little thing.
You require them legally to budget and plan these things and give them harsh penalties if they fail. That they need to set aside money in a way that it can’t be touched if they go under. You’ll likely need to hire teams at the government to help fill gaps and coordinate.
I don’t think you have any idea how much money you’re talking about. The fact that you’re proposing it in the context of an experimental device that was probably never even marketed is just deranged. We’d still be stuck with 1950s-level technology if you had your way because nobody could afford to develop any new products that can’t be made in a basic machine shop.
The whole point of a clinical trial is to enroll volunteers who are willing to undergo a treatment that might not work at all and might not be available in the future even if it does work. Not only that, but you might expect to get a potential cure and end up with only a sugar pill.
If you think any of that is unreasonable, then don’t enroll in a clinical trial.
It doesn’t say that. It says she was willing to pay to keep it in, which means she was willing to pay for long-term maintenance. But there was nobody willing to provide maintenance, because the company dissolved. That is why she was advised to remove the device.
the company was forced to liquidate assets
Implants generally go in the garbage after removal.
Implants that failed to gain FDA approval definitely go in the garbage after removal. Nobody else wants them, in fact the company will end up having to pay for proper disposal of medical waste.
Yes I very clearly stated what my *guess *was. Nothing says enough to determine what truly happened here. As someone who works in the medical field, I’m making an educated guess based on my knowledge of how medical devices, elective surgeries, and governing bodies work.
I think “forced” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. People use it to refer to unpleasant decisions, like “I was forced to leave New York City after I lost my job”.
Others have speculated that she may have been denied health insurance coverage unless she had it removed. That’s not much of a choice when you’re an old disabled woman.
Classify them however you want, they have nothing to do with your eligibility for health insurance.
In fact, ACA health plans must enroll anyone who wants to enroll. They cannot decline an individual renewal. A premium can only be adjusted according to age and tobacco use. And they cannot charge old people more than three times what they charge young people.
They can’t deny claims based on anything in your previous history. They can’t use your history of medical conditions, history of implants, history of drug use, history of pregnancy, history of employment, history of not wearing seat belts, history of anything.
They can say, “We won’t pay for this MRI” or “We won’t pay for this drug”, but that would be true of everyone else on the same plan, regardless of whether they had an implant.
More typically, they say “We only pay for a certain number of MRIs per year” or “You have to get a cheap Xray instead of an expensive MRI” or “You have to try the cheap drug, if that doesn’t work then you can try the expensive one” or “We need to be notified 30 days prior to getting the drug, otherwise we won’t pay” or “You can only get the MRI at this other location, otherwise we won’t pay”.
None of this has to do with your medical history, though. They are simply annoying hoops that everyone has to jump through. And they can never, ever, say “We will pay for X only if you remove the implant, otherwise we won’t pay for X”. If they are paying for X for anyone else on her plan, then they have to pay for hers too.
It sits on the edge of the concept of informed consent in the realm of things like SaaS and copyright. Obviously doctors wouldn’t hold her down and pull it out, but obviously it probably was not useful to leave in. I wonder if there was a contract stating it had to be removed upon demand, like at the end of a trial or the bankruptcy that occurred. It’s something that we’re going to likely see in the future, as medical technology starts using computers to actively treat disorders.
For those not reading the story, which appears to be many, the company that services the implant went bankrupt. The implant was experimental. There exists no one to service it any longer. It will pose a health risk down the road without someone servicing it.
The story doesn’t directly say that’s why it had to be removed (and she talks about wanting to buy it). I found another source that explains that the device came with a three-year battery life.
Forced return to office lost around 30% of our staff. Now over-work and a lack of staff replacement, because nobody wants the in-office job, mean that we are losing even more staff to stress and illness leave.
And suddenly all these contracted products and platforms, that are already being paid for (because nobody checks if staff resources are available in advance) are failing or stalling because there is no available staff or time to deploy them.
Not to mention how much time and efficiency is being lost by forcing the rest of us to operate in an office.
duolingo is a textbook example of a nice small startup, with great ideas that is then completely overtaken my MBAs who run it into the ground as soon as there is enough of a client base to Sell. you fucking fucks all suck.
Similar to Memrise, which was really fun when you could make your own mems using imagesearch and customise everything… And now is a rubbish duolingo clone.
today’s search results are horrible, there are ai generated articles that just happen to contain your question but barely answer it, and also websites that copy stackoverflow and others content (and eventually translate it VERY badly)
I wish someone would develop a search engine that only used a few thousand top curated information sources - wikipedia & so on. I’m sick of wasting my time on SEO spam.
I wish someone would develop a search engine that only used a few thousand top curated information sources - wikipedia & so on. I’m sick of wasting my time on SEO spam.****
And just like that we are back to 1997 (the year before google launched)
Pretty much all the search engines were shit if you were looking for anything really specific.
Honestly, starting with wikipedia is my go to search these days.
I work as a researcher in the university lab OceanGate used to test their vessels. My colleague told me that they would have tests run 7 times resulting in 6 failures and 1 success. OceanGate engineers (maybe their leadership?) would chalk that up as a success and keep going. My colleague says no one in the building would ever get into anything these "morons" built.
I assume there's a fair bit of hyperbole in this, but I think it generally is matching what we're seeing. Oh, also the general consensus here is that their hull caved in and they've been dead for a while.
One thing I can say is if they ever do find the sub intact, its very likely these guys recorded their last hours on their phones and we are very likely to see that at some point… talk about nightmare fuel.
Yes if the cabin filled up with water then the data would not be retrievable. But it sounds now like they have found a debris field so the thing imploded. Best way for them to go really.
“Our principles do not have a price tag, nor will they be compromised — ever,” her note continued. “And no matter how hard they try, we will not be distracted by sideline critics who don’t understand our mission.”
“You couldn’t pay us to stop hating on minorities. It’s a part of our mission.”
If you look into who and why AI has been so heavily researched, it’s literally because these idiots see God as the end result. They’ve been making AI based on how they think God works, should work, etc.
"He came up with a simple solution: getting the lane lines repainted on that pesky curve — which of course, didn't actually address the underlying problem."
This is why Musk is not a technological genius or a technological thinker of any degree. If he was, he would've had a spark of a thought in that shallow brain of his, that says there could've been a more broader approach to tackle things like unpainted curves. Like thinking how the software could identify what's a curve and what isn't.
No, his solution is to just go around and repaint every curve possible.
My first thought, because I am smarter than Elon, is that better road lines, especially those that are embedded in the asphalt/cement so they truly can’t wear out, would be another good business idea.
Yeah, it uses radio frequencies. RaDAR stands for “Radio Detection And Ranging”. It uses radio waves (usually in the microwave bandwidth) to detect things. Basically, since those radio waves are affected by the Doppler effect, you can have a computer do some math to determine the speed of whatever those waves reflected off of. Because the Doppler effect changes a wave based on how fast an object is moving relative to an observer. So if you’re a stationary observer, you can figure out how fast an object is moving relative to yourself, purely based on how much that moving object changes the waves you’re reflecting off of it.
When a car rushes your way, it’s a tiny bit bluer, a little bit hotter, it’s drivers’ phone is operating on a slightly higher frequency and it sounds higher. According to you.
This is why comments are so useful. I was already on the fence about viewing a site named futurism and your comment made sure I will avoid it moving forward.
A lot of articles that either use that buzzword or are published by sites that have that in their name are utter garbage. i.e rediculous predictions, inaccurate headlines/content etc.
#Brandon Hunter useless at 42# Story by Editor • 9/12/2023, 11:21:42 PM21h
Former NBA participant Brandon Hunter, who beforehand performed for the Boston Celtics and Orlando Magic, has handed away on the age of 42, as introduced by Ohio males’s basketball coach Jeff Boals on Tuesday.
Hunter, initially a extremely regarded highschool basketball participant in Cincinnati, achieved vital success as a ahead for the Bobcats.
He earned three first-team All-MAC convention alternatives and led the NCAA in rebounding throughout his senior season. Hunter’s expertise led to his choice because the 56th general decide within the 2003 NBA Draft.
Throughout his NBA profession, he performed in 67 video games over two seasons and achieved a career-high of 17 factors in a recreation in opposition to the Milwaukee Bucks in 2004.
In a shocking revelation, 39-year-old Lemmy user, frickineh, has declared themselves “useless” despite being one of the most active contributors to the popular Lemmy.world instance!
Though they’ve been on the platform for a mere two months, frickineh has already fired off a staggering 65 comments, giving every topic from 3D printing to gaming their two cents! But there’s a twist - this prolific commentator hasn’t yet taken the leap to submit their own posts.
Sources close to the situation say that frickineh’s interests are as varied as they come. They’re not only a tech-savvy enthusiast, but they also have a penchant for the finer things in life, like cross-stitch and embroidery. The question on everyone’s lips is: How can someone with such varied talents feel “useless”?
One insider told our reporters, “You’d think with all the knowledge on gaming, technology, and even embroidery, frickineh would be out there making waves. But instead, they’re here on Lemmy, dishing out opinions without sharing their own stories!”
Will frickineh step up their game and finally make a post? Or will they remain the mystery commentator of Lemmy.world? Only time will tell! Stay tuned for more on this Lemmy legend.
futurism.com
Hot