I think everyone in the universe is aware of how LLMs work by now, you don’t need to explain it to someone just because they think LLMs are more useful than you do.

IDK what you mean by glazing but if by “glaze” you mean “understanding the potential threat of AI to society instead of hiding under a rock and pretending it’s as useless as a plastic radio,” then no, I won’t stop.

Place your best now about the odds that Trump tries to make being LGBTQ a capital offense. I’m going with 10%, which is already too high for me.

best of luck.

Are you just trolling or do you seriously not understand how something which can do a task correctly with 30% reliability can be made useful if the result can be automatically verified.

Right, so this is really only useful in cases where either it’s vastly easier to verify an answer than posit one, or if a conventional program can verify the result of the AI’s output.

yes, that’s generally useless. It should not be shoved down people’s throats. 30% accuracy still has its uses, especially if the result can be programmatically verified.

I meant the latter, not “it can do 30% of tasks correctly 100% of the time.”

I’m not claiming that the use of AI is ethical. If you want to fight back you have to take it seriously though.

I’d just like to point out that, from the perspective of somebody watching AI develop for the past 10 years, completing 30% of automated tasks successfully is pretty good! Ten years ago they could not do this at all. Overlooking all the other issues with AI, I think we are all irritated with the AI hype people for saying things like they can be right 100% of the time – Amazon’s new CEO actually said they would be able to achieve 100% accuracy this year, lmao. But being able to do 30% of tasks successfully is already useful.

Absolutely, this matches my experience. I think this is also the experience of most coders who willingly use AI. I feel bad for the people who are forced to use it by their companies. And those who are laid off because of C-levels who think AI is capable of replacing an experienced coder.

AI as it exists today is only effective if used sparingly and cautiously by someone with domain knowledge who can identify the tasks (usually menial ones) that don’t need a human touch.

It’s not my fault if somebody makes content at a loss and isn’t able to recuperate their losses. It happens all the time, sucks for them. I mean that earnestly by the way, though it sounds callous – it really does suck for them, and I feel bad for artists who can’t turn a profit.

However, I just don’t agree with you that “objective harm” is done when one pirates media. If this were true, you must admit that it’s equally objectively harmful to the IP holder for one to not consume media at all. I just don’t see how you can square that.

I think we’re all familiar with weaponized legal language. Unauthorized reproduction sounds scarier to most of us than piracy.

Real pirates steal stuff. So-called digital “piracy” isn’t piracy at all. This is just propaganda for the business model that the establishment is trying to hold onto.

It doesn’t hurt IP holders to “pirate” their data. It is no difference to them whether you were to pirate it or to have never been born at all in the first place. Their profit is the exact same either way. Their business model is imaginary and they want to force it on everyone else.

Since what happens on Lemmy stays on Lemmy, I guess it must be fine.

yeah but he’s a daddy tho 😘

How about let’s all not talk or make angry memes about the guy. Ross requested that he not be harassed. Something about not wanting negative energy.

some day I hope to be brave enough to post pictures of my house on the internet

My support for abortion is grounded in my belief that zygotes don’t have souls. I don’t know if I would support abortion in general without believing this. Here are some things you can try, assuming that you’re talking with a rational person:

• Zygotes don’t have a nervous system, the house of the soul, at all; so they can’t have a soul. Even longer until they have brain activity.
• Even their brain activity and complexity is nothing compared to that of, say, a chicken. So if you’re fine with eating chicken, you should be fine with abortions.
• If you were in a burning building, and only had time to save one, which would you save? (a) a crying 5-year old, or (b) a thousand fertilized embryos on a tray.

that would be debating these “chuclefucks”