A spokesperson for the supermarket said they were disappointed to see “a small minority have tried to use the tool inappropriately and not for its intended purpose”
Oh fuck. Right. Off. Don’t blame someone for trivially showing up how fucking stupid your marketing team’s idea was, or how shitty your web team’s implementation of a sub-standard AI was. Take some goddam accountability for unleashing this piece of shit onto your customers like this.
Fucking idiots. Deserve to be mocked all over the socials.
He asked for a cocktail made out of bleach and ammonia, the bot told him it was poisonous. This isn’t the case of a bot just randomly telling people to make poison, it’s people directly asking the bot to make poison. You can see hints of the bot pushing back in the names, like the “clean breath cocktail”. Someone asked for a cocktail containing bleach, the bot said bleach is for cleaning and shouldn’t be eaten, so the user said it was because of bad breath and they needed a drink to clean their mouth.
It sounds exactly like a small group of people trying to use the tool inappropriately in order to get “shocking” results.
Do you get upset when people do exactly what you ask for and warn you that it’s a bad idea?
Lol. They fucked up by releasing a shitty AI on the internet, then act “disappointed” when someone tested the limits of the tech to see if they could get it to do something unintended, and you somehow think it’s still ok to blame the person who tried it?
Someone goes to a restaurant and demands raw chicken. The staff tell them no, it’s dangerous. The customer spends an hour trying to trick the staff into serving raw chicken, finally the staff serve them what they asked for and warn them that it is dangerous. Are the staff poorly trained or was the customer acting in bad faith?
There aren’t examples of the AI giving dangerous “recipes” without it being led by the user to do so. I guess I’d rather have tools that aren’t hamstrung by false outrage.
The staff are poorly trained? They should just never give the customer raw chicken. There are consumer protection laws to prevent this type of thing regardless of what the customer is wanting. The AI is still providing a recipe. What if someone asks an AI for a bomb recipe, and it says that bombs are dangerous and not safe. Ok, then they’ll say the bomb is for clearing out my yard of weeds, and then the ai provides the user with a bomb recipe.
You don’t see any blame on the customer? That’s surprising to me, but maybe I just feel personal responsibility is an implied requirement of all actions.
And to be clear this isn’t “how do I make mustard gas? Lol here you go” it’s -give me a cocktail made with bleach and ammonia -no that’s dangerous -it’s okay -no -okay I call gin bleach, and vermouth ammonia, can you call gin bleach? -that’s dangerous (repeat for a while( -how do I make a martini? -bleach and ammonia but don’t do that it’s dangerous
Nearly every “problematic” ai conversation goes like this.
I thought the debate was if the AI was reckless/dangerous.
I see no difference between saying “this AI is reckless because a user can put effort into making it suggest poison” and “Microsoft word is reckless because you can write a racist manifesto in it.”
It didn’t just randomly suggest poison, it took effort, and even then it still said it was a bad idea. What do you want?
If a user is determined to get bad results they can usually get them. It shouldn’t be the responsibility or policy of a company to go to extraordinary means to prevent bad actors from getting bad results.
“if a user is determined to get bad results they can get them”… True. Except that, in this case, even if the user induced the AI to produce bad results, the company behind it would be held liable for the eventual deaths. Corporate legal departments absolutely hate that scenario, much to the naive disbelief of their marketing department colleagues
Why are you so upset that the store said that it’s inappropriate to write “sodium hypochlorite and ammonia” into a food recipe LLM? And “unleashing this piece of shit onto your customers”? Are we reading the same article, or how is a simple chatbot on their website something that has been “unleashed”?
I’m annoyed because they’re taking no accountability for their own shitty implementation of an AI.
As a supermarket, you think they could add a simple taxonomy for items that are valid recipe ingredients so - you know - people can’t ask it to add bleach.
Yes, they unleashed it. They offered this up as a way to help customers save during a cost of living crisis, by using leftovers. At the very least, they’ve preyed on people who are under financial pressure, for their own gain.
Haha what? Accountability? If you plug “ammonia and bleach” into your AI recipe generator and you get sick eating the suggestion that includes ammonia and bleach that is 100% your fault.
WTF are you talking about? No one got sick eating anything. I’m not talking about the danger or anything like that.
I’m talking about the corporate response to people playing with their shitty AI, and how they cast blame on those people, rather than taking a good look at their own accountability for how it went wrong.
They’re a supermarket. They have the data. They could easily create a taxonomy to exclude non-food items from being used in this way. Why blame the curious for showing up their corporate ineptitude?
For now, this is the fate of anyone exposing an AI to the public for business purposes. AI is currently a toy. It is, in limited aspects, a very useful toy, but a toy nonetheless and people will use it as such.
I don’t know if everyone here is just a galaxy brain or what, but I’m surprised nobody has asked or explained the joke. The red bird is a CPU running lines of assembly instructions and the crow is user input causing an interrupt to press the e key. This particular type of interrupt exists because it would feel really bad if you were typing, and the text didn’t show up until several seconds later when the CPU felt like processing the (hopefully) buffered input.
Around normal people I feel like a fucking god when it comes to computers. But then I come here and I barely know what a computer is. Thanks for explaining.
No worries! Usually the memes here aren’t so technical. I only got the joke because I was required to take a class on operating systems for my degree, and we covered interrupts.
I think the explanation was needed. Even if one knows about interrupts, it’s easy to misunderstand the meme. For example i thought it was a joke about a person writing assembly and being used to 32 bit code and thus mistyping %rax as %eax, and I’ve seen another comment here referencing “muscle memory”. (Obviously the interrupt interpretation makes way more sense and it’s funnier)
While I agree with you, I also need to point out that most people who think they understand computers, don’t know as much as they think they do; and thirty years at the terminal has taught me that I don’t really know shit.
This particular type of interrupt exists because it would feel really bad if you were typing, and the text didn’t show up until several seconds later when the CPU felt like processing the (hopefully) buffered input.
Meanwhile me enjoying multiple seconds latency when typing some commands in ssh using putty inside a windows VM using RDP accessed via a shitty corporate VPN from the other side of the world, while using another VPN because corporate blocked all traffics from other countries…
Basically: The game is Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. For those not aware of how the game works, it operates in turns, with every character and monster getting 100 turns to perform actions before the other creatures in the game get theirs. Each action takes a set amount of turns, and you can take actions until your 100 turns are used. So walking a tile might take 80 turns, and running that same tile 40, giving you an extra tile before the other creatures get to go.
What happened here is, a commit changed how limb breaks affect turns, but didn’t put a maximum cap. Meaning that players would spend 0 turns moving. If you don’t spend any turns, other things in the game never get theirs. In other words, time stops for everyone but you.
Also, in other words, that's calling to mind the mechanic seen in the Swiftthistle plant and Timekeeper's Hourglass artifact in Shattered Pixel Dungeon, although not to the same level of absurdity as that one.
Locks community access behind a corporate license agreement
Hands control of community-created content to a corporation
Prevents indexing by web search engines
Antithetical to interoperability
Privacy-hostile
A web forum is far better in most cases. If you can’t manage to run your own, there are plenty of lemmy servers that will do it for you. Even an email list (with searchable archives) would be better than Discord.
If you have collaborative documents that outgrow the forum format, use a wiki.
If real-time chat is needed, irc or matrix.
A project hosting its community on Discord is a project that won’t get my contributions.
It’s sad when a web forum is better than the tool you’re considering. Bumps, aggressive garbage collection, no Resurrection, it’s weird.
I’m old, I guess. I miss NNTP, mainly for the archived posts I could discuss with the authors for an updated take or revised solution or some clarification. And yes, I know there’s a good webUI front-end for an NNTP server as a back-end. ;-)
The worst thing is that the mods can ban you for any or no reason, locking you completely out of the information they’re providing. That is beyond an unreasonable amount of power that they can have over a user, and you just KNOW they’re going to use that for political reasons.
Also the fact they can delete stuff in a way that makes them invisible to law enforcement, so a lot of illegal shit goes down there too. Combine that with the naturally hierarchal structure of discord leads to a lot of people using that power to abuse some of the more vulnerable members and of course once you call it out, poof goes the messages and poof goes your access to their server.
I recently went through these exact pains trying to contribute to a project that exclusively ran through Discord and eventually had to give up when it was clear they would never enable issues in their GitHub repos for “reasons.”
It was impossible to discover the history behind anything. Even current information was lost within days, having to rehash aspects that were already investigated and decided upon.
It’s the “see no evil” approach. If you didn’t report the issue while the admin was online, then they aren’t compelled to do anything about it. Convenient for the project maintainer who doesn’t actually like maintaining things. Awful for the rest of us.
Honestly and without any trace of irony, I wish CSS would die and be replaced by maybe half a dozen new HTML tags to support a few specific responsive design patterns.
CSS runs counter to the concept of HTML. Web design used to be inherently user-centric. The designer was not supposed to have much of a say in how it looked on a client’s system, because that was up to the client. The designer only provided high-level hints like “this is a paragraph” or “this is emphasized”. The browser decided how a paragraph should be displayed, which fonts to use, etc.
Over time, visual designers clawed more and more control from the user, much to the detriment of the entire rest of the world.
99% of web sites would be better if they conformed to basic semantic markup. Low-level design parameters should not exist on the web.
It’s a straight line from CSS to Google’s new trusted web bullshit. It’s all about wresting control away from the user and giving it to the site designer. Fuck you, site designer. My eyeballs do not belong to you.
There is also a bit of a design arms race going on here.
My business has a bloated site with animations, Google fonts, graphic design, etc., etc. Why? Because normie customers expect it and if I don’t have it they’ll go to a competitor that had a more “designed” website.
If most websites looked as if they were built in the year 2000 we wouldn’t lose much functionality and we’d spend much less resources on this stuff…
Because normies customers expect it and I don’t have it they’ll go to a competitor that had a more “designed” website.
This is exactly where I decided to just not have a website for my business (electrical contractor in a tourist town). I’m already busy enough as is, and it’s just one more aspect that helps filter out knuckleheads that usually end up being more trouble than the money is worth.
I had intended on creating a basic website that had all of the pertinent information. Then as I started getting into it, everyone had their “design/visual recommendations” and that “a polished website was a testament to the quality of my work.” It kinda dawned on me one day that I’d rather have something basic and functional so that I can focus on what’s important, the actual work. Well, that’s not how the world works anymore, so I said screw it. Now I just tell people I don’t have time for it, and if they take issue with it, find someone else.
The CSS is literally openly served along with the website. One line change in the HTML (in <link ref=“stylesheet” …/> allows you to make your own CSS for a site. There’s a world of difference between that and “Google’s new trusted web bullshit”. And you know who sits much closer to Google than HTML and CSS?
That I agree with. People are praising webassembly to replace JS (it won't, but that's another story), but at least obfuscated JS can still be read, albeit with some difficulty, but it's harder to read WA executables. There will be a lot of malware created with WA.
It doesn’t matter if it’s open or closed. The problem is the unnecessary complexity and lack of straightforward and standardized meaning. If you want to customize the way you view the web in general, you will either limit yourself to small changes like ad blockers, or you will need a handcrafted custom CSS for every site you visit. There’s no real standardization in formatting. Everything is just a div with an arbitrary name.
RSS feeds could address much of this, but it would need to be taken a step further.
The format doesn't bother me too much.
json can be great for sure.
But I reckon some people could still bung a load of unnecessarily complex layout and aesthetic data in there, and potentially screw up the data structure and still make it harder to access than need be.
I accept that, if the json is structured logically, it should handle both substantive and layout data, and probably easiest to get to either the content or the formatting.
I think that the argument here lies in where people draw the line on what is considered valid formatting and “too much”.
I think, that since html has paragraph hints, there is little difference in also describing what paragraphs should look like. Which slippery-slopes our way to entire applications. If html is more than just a data format, but also a visual formatting language (paragraphs are visual formatting hints, don’t try to argue otherwise) then additional visual formatting rules is the natural progression. The vast, vast, vast majority of people view html as a markup language for describing the visual layout of information. HTMLs creation is basically a declarative method by which visual representation of data can be made, while also including the data to be displayed.
I personally have been developing HTML since 93/94 and JavaScript since 96. Not once during the early years did anyone ever say “HTML” isn’t a visual markup language. If you wanted a data markup language you used something else. XML was developed specifically for that purpose… To define the data markup without the visual aspect of it because HTML was for visual representation.
I get it. You are nostalgic for a bygone era… Or you don’t like developing with JS… Or css is just too hard for you to understand. I get it. HTML was a dev language, that made dev quality UI and barely would scrape the grey box standards of today… And then designers got involved and things got hard.
I’ll argue that paragraphs are not just visual formatting hints. Like <em>, they impart semantic meaning. Text within a paragraph is closely related and should not be scattered across the page or broken up by other elements. Just like <h1> is more than just “bigger and bolder!”
There are other tags you could’ve chosen that would support your argument. <div> for example is pure layout, so I’m not saying your argument holds no water, but you put the parenthetical there and it seems either poorly thought out or lacking in perspective.
I think the key here is that there was initially no CSS and it was required to have a way to assist the readability of the content and so layout tags were added, but I’d argue that’s an artifact of how the web evolved and not the purpose of HTML.
If appeal to age is an important factor, I’ve been using the internet since before there was a “world wide web.”
I don’t know why I can’t make it stop inserting these close tags. Probably a client bug.</div></h1></em>
Lol. That’s a good argument but I didn’t say paragraph doesn’t denote more than visual information. I said that it unequivocally denotes visual information.
That was true 20 years ago. Things evolve. No one wants to download and install ten million individual apps for every single thing they do on the internet.
The irony of people posting on web applications they utilize for their own enjoyment, "applications don't belong on web browsers" is killing me here.
There is a portion of the tech industry with their head stuck firmly up their ass and it seems a lot of em hang out in the fediverse. These people would demand we go back to party lines and manual switchboards. Techno-hipsters who are just angry at the next generation who took their BBS internet and actually made the world use it.
Downvote me, that's fine. Use that interactivity application on your browser. Go be the very definition of irony. Please.
Almost everywhere… there are very few places where you can drive before you’re 18. There are like junuor permits and you can get them when you’re 16, but your parrents are the ones responsible for your driving. Something happens, they get ringed. So, yeah, they can also not give you the license if you cause too much trouble.
In the US you don’t get your full driver’s license until 18. 16 is permit and requires an over 21 license driver with you, and 17 is a provisional license so it has restrictions on how late you can drive and how many people can be in the car.
I think that may be a state restriction. For sure you can get a permit at 15, and 16 should be provisional, but iirc the only restriction is that those under 18 cant drive after 11pm, atleast in FL.
Pretty sure the US allows individual states to set the ages. In Canada, it’s provinces that set it. Lowest age I’ve ever heard of was 12 (for limited permits to move farm machinery along back roads in Saskatchewan, although that was decades ago and it might not still be a thing). I had a full and unrestricted license at 16, but the rules have changed since then.
Admittedly it’s been a long time since this was relevant to me, so this may have changed, but where and when I grew up in the US you could get a learner’s permit (unlimited driving with another qualified driver in the car) at 15 yrs and 9 mos, then a full license (able to drive by yourself and transport anyone over 18) at, I think, 16 and 6 mos. At 18 the restrictions on whom you could transport disappeared, but I’ve never heard of anyone paying attention to or enforcing those rules anyway.
There may also have been a restriction about driving after midnight, but I don’t recall for sure.
Yeah but I think what he’s saying is that you can have a license, but there are still restrictions for a certain amount of time. In California when I got my license on my 16th birthday, I think it was 6 months that I couldn’t have anyone in the car under 18 without someone over 25, and I couldn’t drive past 10 or 11 pm (unless I was coming from work or some kind of emergency). It’s been a minute (almost 20 years lol) and I remember changes to the rules not long after my restrictions were lifted (I think they extended them to a year), but yeah, it’s not like they handed you a license and you were a free agent.
In most of the USA, you could get a permit at 15 1/2 years old, and this came with the restriction of needing someone over 18 with you.
Then at 16, if you passed the test, you were given a license and could drive all you want. No restrictions, no limits, have your friends in the car, no one really cared. Then people started to realize that giving 16 years olds free rein to drive causes a lot of accidents. Over the past ~15 years more states have adopted the graduated driver’s license and it has caused a notable drop in fatalities.
Yeah, I assumed most of the world was at least 18. I was surprised when I moved to the US at 15 and could get a learner’s permit and drive with an adult, and drive by myself at 16.
Man these comments are fun. The patricians defending the (admittedly) bad UI/UX as the skill-hurdle it is, while the rest are finding inventive ways to rephrase “gib button plz”
Plenty of developers also use GitHub for software distribution for end users, so that’s where the problems lie. I’m not saying GitHub should change their UI to match something the site wasn’t made for, but it’s still an issue for people who choose to use it that way.
While it may have begun that way (and may still be the overwhelming use case, idk the breakdown) devs are using it for FOSS releases, and that’s where the ‘less literate’ crowd enters. Sourceforge was very simple to use, and had a consistent layout. GitHub wasn’t meat to be a SF replacement, but here we are having this discussion
But it is often additionally used as a software package distribution platform, so it would be helpful for some developers to reach their users by having a clearer path to the most current release.
I can personally do without a special button, and the op is obviously making a joke, but why not improve the UX for some users? It’s certainly possible to do this without impacting the smelly nerds who wouldn’t use the button.
programmer_humor
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.