FriendOfDeSoto

There are few feces filled salvoes flung at Melon Usk that I would object to. This is not one of them. The question I have though is this: do we need a new Twitter? It had its time in the sun but most people look back at it through rose tinted glasses. Before the takeover by the son of South African emerald mine owners, Twitter was in deep trouble. It had cultural relevance but was a financial flop. It benefited from being the first service of its kind with sufficient reach. I don’t think Twitter would have survived without the Nazi saluting shithead either. Its decline would have been more graceful by comparison. It would have done it without the bullshit tsunami emanating from the top, it wouldn’t have had the money to digitally undress people or other adventures in so-called AI, but I believe it would have faded anyway. People have split up from the one consensus platform to many different ones and making people switch is hard. So coming back now with a new Twitter is like announcing we will electrocute another Topsy next week. That turned heads more than a century ago but we have moved on.

Don’t share this online. The enemy bots are listening.

Thanks for your comment. They demonstrated something and I didn’t mean to dismiss that out of hand. It can be one data point hopefully among many.

But this time this new paradigm is very much controlled by the wealthiest of the wealthy.

I think that was true with the socials to a point as well, all aflush with venture capital and people like Peter Thiel dicking about there as well. I think radio and television needed capital as well to get going. And the printing press wasn’t cheap either and Gutenberg needed investors. So I think it’s a retread at scale as well.

We don’t believe everything we read, hear, see, and come across on social media either. The resistance to so-called AI is already building up. People who don’t use it at all, people who try to avoid it, and businesses are regretting letting a lot of people go for this crap. We’ll find a way to filter out the bullshit as well. Nobody jumps out of their seat when a train comes out of the tunnel on the silver screen any more. Consider that image as apocryphal and metaphorical in this context.

But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.

In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.

Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.

My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.

The researchers cautioned, however, that, because they did not have a control group of people given counterarguments by humans, they could not definitively say the 30% reversal rate reflected an effect unique to AI.

This study may be considered one data point and if others add to it, okay. But until then, this is not worth getting outraged over.

Also, if you are in a position to change this dramatic outcome by altering a train’s course or pushing a person off a bridge, you probably won’t have the time to ask an LLM to enter into a philosophical debate with you. So this measured a highly theoretical change of mind about a virtually never to be encountered philosophical dilemma. The remote likelihood of such situations landing in their lap must have been very present in the participants’ minds while answering. It’s like playing with monopoly money or shooting a bunch of NPCs. A study about a more life-like scenario (political beliefs, cultural norms, work practices, etc.) which ticks all requirements of a well peer-reviewed study would probably be more insightful.

We are also retreading all the debates about misinformation from when the web came about and then again with the advent of social media. Which had previously been held when movable type came about in Europe. Or the advent of radio and TV. The long arm of history shows we’re getting better at dealing with these changes.

We also share half of our DNA with bananas. Therefore, we are also siblings of bananas.

Call me cynical but I do think an outlet called oil price dot com may not be entirely impartial when they report on this. That is not to say what they wrote here is wrong; I wouldn’t know. It just has a touch of pot and kettle about it.

Since the power networks are linked and European countries import and export electricity, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that next to renewables power from gas stepped in to fill the nuclear gap. And the price for natural gas is often linked to a certain other commodity price.

Sad.

I get she was frustrated. I get this was a joke. You don’t make bomb jokes in line at the TSA either.

She may have overestimated the degree of privacy her DMs had. That’s also on her. Other e2e encrypted services are available to make the crass jokes. But if one of the three recipients had also failed to get the joke, a Signal chat would’ve sufficed to get those deputies showing up as well.

And one shouldn’t expect that a company, even of dwindling importance as Snapchat, won’t do everything in their power to cover their asses. Imagine if this teacher did go amok and they flagged it but did nothing.

If you can’t (or won’t) cut down on having firearms freely available, and if you cannot (or will not) do more on the mental health side of prevention, and you have already invented bullet proof whiteboards, doors like battlefield tanks, and implemented a system of metal detector entry checks and maybe deployed an armed guard, then this is an almost good idea. It’s the blinking light in the window and an alarm system sticker on the window that may deter a thief but for school shootings.

I’m not sure about pepper spray. Is a blind shooter unloading their AR-15 magazine an improvement over a fully sighted one? Why aren’t they equipping them with tranquilizer darts? Cross promotion potential for zoos as well.

What are the odds that we get coordinated school attacks and we find out one part-time student at the control center can’t fly 5 drones in 5 different high schools at the same time?

Have a look before you post. This intelligent looking thumbnail has been posted already.

Gemіnі AI kіlled someone

The report also seems not to realize that it is being written by the Trump administration.

There are a few delightful digs like this in this article.

The only thing that’s golden is the tacky veneer on the White House walls in the picture.

I encourage it to a point. I try to avoid it as much as I can. But it’s like you’re a vegetarian and sometimes there is only sausage on the menu. I like the idea of using established feedback channels to complain especially about slop. I will try to copy that.

I would say be careful about your tactic of vandalism. Especially if it’s only you doing that but also in general. I think you are looking to close a barn door as the horse traverses the horizon.

Art, like water, will find a way to survive. Some streams will sadly dry up, new unexpected ones will spring up elsewhere. Illumination painters went out of style after the printing press. A lot of painting got taken over by photography and video. Etc.

In the meantime, in my view, the best way to protest is not to give money to the offenders and to tell them why you refuse to. But I’m also afraid that if you are quite rigid in your stance you’ll not be spending any money at all.

We are at the beginning of this supposed r-AI-volution. So far it costs several arms and legs and the results overall for the massive investment of limbs are rather unimpressive. I live in hope that economical restraints along with the anti-datacenter sentiment will course correct this quite a bit.

And every trend breeds counterculture. High usage of generated imagery will undoubtedly lead to a made by humans trend in a couple of years.

Why does anybody have to care about this story? The so-called-AI aspect is at best ornamental, the rest is all irrelevant to this community.

Or only allow YouTube links in the post text so we can all be spared the dumb thumbnail images. It’s funny how on YouTube the silly facial expression leads to more views whereas here it makes me want to spend much less time on YouTube.

Personally, I don’t think there is a solid plan. Any plan. They are throwing very expensive spaghetti at the wall, mostly undercooked, and little sticks. They are the gamblers at the roulette table betting the house on double zero.

Proven usefulness is rare. Helping people with disabilities leading a more independent life is one of those. Are those the folks with deep pockets? I think film making will include this in one way or another. Does that justify building all these data centers and the costs attached? The only area where I would say to hell with the costs is if this can help in the fields of medicine or pharmacology but I don’t think they have proven usefulness there satisfactorily. So who will pay back the insane debt this pie in the sky is baked with? Answer: anybody, as far as the so-called-AI peddlers are concerned. But that wasn’t the plan. That’s probably already pivot plan T at this point. It’s not built for normies, but it’s marketed towards them, out of necessity at this point. To the detriment of overall ability to think critically and for the environment.

Don’t call me Shirley.

It’s like with planting trees. The best time was to plant some 50 years ago, the second best time is now. But it is too late in many ways.

This is basically an ad. Also, if you auto-filled in an area you maybe shouldn’t strip the meta data that indicates that you used a model to do that.