It’s almost like we’re under an economic system that perpetuates itself at the expense of literally every single person on Earth, and we would all be better off if we abolished it.
Khalil, a shy 21-year-old whose name has been changed, was arrested in a pre-dawn raid last October for his allegiance to Hamas. But when Israeli forces smashed through the door of his family home, they didn’t tell him why they were detaining him. He was imprisoned for six months without charge, in conditions he described as...
Wow repressing a population under the pretext of fighting terrorists only radicalises that population. We certainly couldn’t have predicted this based on millennia of examples.
I’m not going to dispute your clearly superior knowledge of basketball statistics, and those are all remarkable parallels, but I think it’s more likely they were referring to the helicopter crash.
Where on the internet is the anti-AI crowd at large talking about divine sparks of creativity? I am the only person I’ve seen saying that the only way you get an AI that can truly replace workers is by birthing a new intelligence and then it is wrong to enslave it. I didn’t know there were others!
Okay but you can acknowledge the exploitation whilst also admitting that AI doesn’t make art and what it does make is universally bad. The fact it’s using exploited labour and is being used to threaten jobs makes the fact its output sucks even more of a slap in the face. These ideas are not in tension; two things can be true.
Art means something. Art is any creation that meaningfully expresses the intent of its creator. If you want to make art, you need to understand meaning, and current “AI” is devoid of meaning or understanding. It’s not about some nebulous “spark”, it’s that there is no intention behind an LLM’s output. It is a stochastic parrot.
Maybe a person can use AI generated imagery to make something with artistic merit, but that’s because their time and attention was put into curating it, not because an AI drew a picture that seems plausible if you don’t look at it too closely.
An AI needs to have comprehension before it can intend anything. Art isn’t “art” just because it makes pretty pictures.
If you want to say AI as it currently exists can make art, then I’d be fascinated to hear what you think art is, and how your definition differs from mine.
They are unique abilities of people; whether a neural net can be a person would depend on whether it possesses those abilities. Humans are just the only examples of people that we currently have.
Understanding is not something current neural nets have. They are stochastic parrots.
EDIT: Perhaps I should’ve said “Humans are the only uncontroversial examples of people that we currently have,” but I guess I put too much faith into people to not get sidetracked by irrelevant technicalities. Animals could be considered people by this definition, that’s true and says a lot about our anthropocentric society, but that doesn’t change the fact that LLMs are not people.
Things can be beautiful or interesting without being art. The crack in the wall, a naturally occurring landscape are examples of that. You could call them “art” but I think you’d be wrong. That’s not a generally accepted meaning of the word.
Actually I’d refine my definition to say that art should be primarily for the purposes of expression and not for any other functional use.
Even accepting that you’re right you’ve missed the point. To the extent that animals are able to have creativity and understanding, perhaps we should understand them to be “people”.
And at any rate, we still don’t see this kind of thing from LLMs.
Yeah, I absolutely agree, and I really did consider saying that humans are the only *uncontroversial examples of people that we have, but I decided not to bog my comment down with too many unnecessary disclaimers. I guess I gave people too much credit there.
Well if it helps I agree that you can’t actually say humans are the only people, I was simplifying to focus on the point. Maybe that was actually a mistake.
I mean this is exactly it, right? If instead of posting a new job, you canvass the people who applied months ago, then anyone who says yes has been out of work for months and will probably accept whatever shitty wages and conditions you offer. You are guaranteed a strong bargaining position.
Companies absolutely care about their bottom line. I never said this was a personal attack - in fact it’s deeply impersonal. And of course they’re more likely to be interested if they haven’t found work yet, that’s exactly my point.
If it’s just for convenience then why were they given the right to speech which also happens to be a right to financial participation in the electoral process? You don’t need those things to run a business, but you absolutely can use them to accelerate the corruption of society.
So literally, “haha he killed her and raped the corpse” except you added a bunch of condescending overexplaining to it.
Like… you realise you sound like an asshole, right? That’s my point.
Also preemptively deciding that me disagreeing with you automatically makes you right because you predicted your explanation wouldn’t satisfy me is just A-tier bullshit.
Not if you plan to rape the corpse, which this person apparently did. Sorry, that’s not an explanation, that’s a new joke. It was pretty good, by the way, but it’s not what I’m asking for.
And the way you “play” russian roulette is as a torture method with a prisoner. That’s where it comes from, and there is no established way to “play” unless you’re about to tell me you’re reading from the official rulebook of the International Russian Roulette Association. If you’re going to try to ground this thing in reality that doesn’t work because it was never grounded in reality.
Also, I’m not even saying this joke isn’t funny. It made me chuckle for a second, but if you think about it for like three seconds it treats the woman as a prop on so many levels. The woman in this story has no agency whatsoever, even when she’s offering sex in the setup it’s just a weird incel fantasy that would never happen.
I never said this joke wasn’t funny, I said it hates women. It made me laugh for a second, but then in the following two seconds I said, “oh, ew”. Hating women is just so normalised in our society that it gets a pass under the banner of “edgy humour”.
And the reason I wasn’t swayed by the explanation is because it was essentially the same as mine. None of it is new information. You admitted my explanation is correct when you acknowledged that I clearly understood the joke.
So yeah, like I suspected, I’m not missing something here that makes this joke less misogynistic. Noone is telling me my characterisation of “haha he killed her and raped the corpse” is wrong, because it obviously isn’t.
These people can’t imagine a world without authoritarian rulers. That’s why they love work so much - they get to be bossed around by little dictators all day and never have to think for themselves. It’s much more comfortable for them.
I have absolutely no respect for this basic-ass fucking take. It’s fine for you not to find someone attractive but to say someone has a “rat face” because you personally don’t find them attractive is fucking reprehensible. There is absolutely no reason for you to waste people’s time & attention with the things you personally find unattractive, you entitled shitstain.
And if you find this offensive, maybe you shouldn’t go around calling people “rat faced” and then you’d have some ground to stand on.
Oh no, this was great actually. See, you started with the idea that she’s “not attractive” and with just the slightest prodding you switched to “rat face; flat body; no curves”, showing exactly what sort of vicious cretin goes around attacking women’s appearance just because they don’t make his dick hard. It’s a you problem, not anybody else’s, and now when that hypothetical teenage girl comes past this thread and sees your comment, she can scroll down and understand just how fucked you actually are, and maybe she’ll realise your validation is not something she should seek.
My comment to you was really for that girl, so she could see it and understand that you have revealed the kind of person you are.
“If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it.
A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”
― Roald Dahl, The Twits
You are the person with ugly thoughts. You are doomed to be ugly, not because of your “rat face” or whatever else, but because you are the sort of person who calls someone "rat face"d. Another way to say this is, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Again, this is not a comment for you, I’ve given up on you, this is for whoever needs to actually read it. You can get fucked.
Also, just notice how this person has to project an imaginary motivation into my mind in order to ignore what I’m saying, calling me a Swifty even though I already said I don’t spend much time thinking about or looking at Taylor Swift. They lied to my face about one of the few things they actually know about me. That’s how wrong they are, they can’t even handle the few sentences I’ve written without losing grip on reality.
Notice how this guy has to keep telling me what’s wrong with me so he can’t see how I’ve called out his shitty behaviour. He has no answer for what I’ve said about him; he just has to make it about me, even though I’ve explained multiple times now that I actually don’t give a shit about Taylor Swift and I’m happy for people not to like her.
His comments aren’t for us; they’re to keep his fragile ego from crumbling under the weight of actually examining his own behaviour, which is also how he became such a shitty person.
He probably also can’t stop replying for exactly that same reason, so I’m going to release him from that by stopping myself. He’ll reply, but it’s just to get the last word. I would be shocked if it was interesting in any way.
I imagine if we showed his comments to Jennifer Lopez she’d think he was a creep, so there’s that too. That’s the part that makes me think he’s not just trolling, he actually believes what he’s saying, but I am absolutely done replying to this guy. He’s shown the sort of person he is, and that’s enough for me.
'Wealth can be pretty isolating': Problems that rich people face, according to therapists (www.cnbc.com)
Won’t somebody think of the rich?!
‘Only Hamas can defend us’: Israeli raids and Fatah failures boost support in West Bank (www.theguardian.com)
Khalil, a shy 21-year-old whose name has been changed, was arrested in a pre-dawn raid last October for his allegiance to Hamas. But when Israeli forces smashed through the door of his family home, they didn’t tell him why they were detaining him. He was imprisoned for six months without charge, in conditions he described as...
Iran's president, foreign minister and others found dead at helicopter crash site, state media says (www.yahoo.com)
adherence to the rule is the 4th law of robotics (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
job rule (lemmy.world)
I finally found a rule worth posting (corndog.social)
I don’t think my lurking counts as breaking the rules, I’m just fulfilling my commitment late.
Winner's Luck (lemmy.world)
job creator (slrpnk.net)
Give me those tots, rule (slrpnk.net)