maybe people with similar political views tend to agree on certain topics
For people those people treating politics as a team sport and uncondtionally cheering for everything their team does, all while not actually having any independent views and opinions beyond the latest narratives their favorite talking heads are spreading that day, this must feel like a completely alien concept.
That’s the probably most unhelpful and stupid thing I saw in quite some time. The AI or Not Quiz right at the beginning in particular regularly links the exact same things to human or to AI (404 links are a sign or AI hallucination or just natural link decay that show it’s from a human; wonky grammar is a sign for AI unless the text is human-written where it’s just bad english that LLMs would not produce intentionally…).
Yes, spotting AI by clear attributes isn’t easy. If it was those points would be changed first in training of AI. But lengthily discussing tell–tale signs then interpreting them in contrary ways depending on source is absolute bullshit.
When you look around your room do you not see a plethora of goods made by polluting industries?
No, but yeah some trees died for furniture. 🙄
Do you travel exclusively by foot?
No, also by bike and public transport. Which partly is still running on fossil fuels (although still vastly more efficient per person) because brain rot (or money) tells people in the relevant positions that greener alternatives don’t work or are inefficient.
Even for people actually dependent on cars it’s not real facts that keeps them chained to rediculously oversized cars running on inefficient combustion engines. That exclusively based on propaganda, paid by the people that want to keep selling fossil fuels.
Do you eat only foods that can be brought to your area without refrigerated trucks?
Mostly actual… but that isn’t even the point. I talked specifically about the big chunk of pollution that is burning fossil fuels. Are you trying to tell me that you can’t transport those electric (on the last mile), by (also electrified) train and that you can’t run the refrigerators on green electricity somehow?
None of us are willing to give up the computers or network infrastructure
Which was very much not my point. What I was talking about is people’s unwillingness to use greener and also more efficient alternatives for a lot of things. Not based on facts. Not based on the unwillingless to go without them completely. But 100% based on loud, constant, paid screaming that those alternatives don’t work and are more expensive and really, really don’t solve any real problems other that stopping the massive burning of fossils (but shhh… don’t talk about that small detail).
I really don’t understand your focus on computers and networks that actually have a lot of pros, too, when people not willing to give up their city-tanks or three dozen throw away plastic bags a week (although there are alternatives in no way worse) and often also voting for idiots clinging to fossil fuel power plants and car infrastructure above anything else are also a big problem. Ones we could actually easily solve yet don’t because paid narratives are running the show.
Instead we get a ton of benefit out of pollution
No, the producers of fossil fuels get a ton of benefits in the form of money. You get health issues, climate change and desinformation (paid by a fraction of those big amounts of money) telling you how the clean and more efficient alternative isn’t working and so you will have to suffer if you chose the alternative.
Also the polution’s drawbacks from global climate change to your personal health problems aren’t real… or they are real but not as severe as people claim… well actually they are severe but we can totally fix those easier than transitioning away from burning the planet… okay maybe we can’t fix it but totally demolishing our economy by not killing the planet would be much more expensive… and so on, ad infinitum ad nauseam.
No, that one is just brain-damaged by all the propaganda.
The paid stooges are far ahead and don’t actually question stuff but plain out claim that it is indeed a hoax. One to kill all industry, tech and even people out of ideological insanity. Why else would they try to build green power production that obviously doesn’t work and even reduce CO₂ when we all know that plants need that CO₂ to survive? 😉
The epitome of modern AI/LLM: It only needs to do, not actually make sense or be right. 😆
No, I just reject the notion that the ongoing discussion about AI use in software production is a moral/ethical one. That’s a bullshit narrative to actually discredit all the good reasons against AI by making up a mostly fictional “but it’s just ideology”-argument.
Yes actions include moral choices. But actions that are stupid and make no sense at all don’t need to be discussed in terms of is it ethically okay to do it, because that’s not the interesting point there.
I won’t discuss about the moral choice of hitting my thumb with a hammer, even less to when I tried hammering in a screw like a moron. So I will also not discuss imaginary topics of ethical use of AI in coding. Because it’s bullshit. It produces low quality slob. It’s a scam trying to tell people with no clue about programmning that they can totally do it, too, while trying to gas-light programmers into believing that they really, really need to use that tool for coding or be left behind. Using AI for coding because you already used it for debugging tasks is not an ethical discussion. Just like using a hammer for a screw because you already hammered in nails is not one. It’s a discussion about what AI CAN do and what it CAN’T. Discussions if you SHOULD use AI for a specific task have to happen AFTER you determined if it makes sense first place. And to return the hammer analogy a third time (it’s a magic number after all…): If someone would try to argue that we need to discuss the ethics of hammering in a screw because it already worked with a nail, would you agree that all actions have ethical implications that need to be considered or would you dismiss him because the ethical discussion is not relevant. I did the latter in my comment.
Again: If using AI for coding for real world purposes (and I don’t talk about non-technical people building their low quality app here… that’s mostly a gimmick) was viable, sure… use it. Or let’s start an ethics discussion then. That’s fine with me, too.
But don’t pretend that the actual discussion right know, mainly lead by clueless people evaluating a new gimmick with very little understanding of its actual capabilities (and limits) and CEOs willing to believe in any snake oil if it promises to help them get rid of those obnoxious workers demanding pay (it won’t - every actual fact and number tells us that AI is in fact more expensive, even before figuring in the human employees also needed to hold the leash) is one about ethical use in coding. It isn’t. It’s about a discussion between those that use AI for the things it can do and avoid it where it’s useless and those that somehow have found their new religion and saviour and try to make everything about a) those in tech that use AI because they obviously have seen the light and converted and b) those still left in the dark and fighting their new god for made up moral or other reasons.
That’s a fairy tale completely ignoring the third group: technical people that use AI only and exactly where it makes sense. A fairy tale mostly pushed by a few people behind AI development because they already sunk such insane sums into it that they need to believe (and make you believe) that an (human level or more) artificial general intelligence is just around the corner. Just think about it: there people are actually taking about the equivalent of creating new life (new artificial conciousness) to justify their insane investments. And we should talk about the ethical implications of using AI in coding? How is that not a distraction?
Btw… now that I thought about it (and spelled some of it out) I want to walk back to my earlier statement. If AI is actually able to do soon™ what the morons behind it are proposing, that’s indeed the moment to start an ethics discussion. A very complicated one about definitions of conciousness and life… good thing that this will not actually happen.
Sorry but no. Contrary to what some activist types want you to believe it’s not about actual ethical use when we are talking about software.
It’s about LLMs being a tool that should be used where it’s the proper and efficient tool for the job (see: here) and that should definitely not be used where it isn’t the proper tool (vibe coded bullshit) just because some PR guy told you that this tool is your shiny new hammer and everything is a nail now.
When LLMs can produce proper reviewable code use them ffs… alas, they can’t in any case complex enough to actually justify their use.
The CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E. products deliver shocks ranging from 324 to 362 volts and have a hard operational limit of 380 volts. By comparison, a taser can reach between 1,200 and 1,500 volts.
If only journalists took the 5 seconds to look up how voltage and current actually work to understand that this comparison without other reference points is worthless…
None of those graph ever are. Because Linux users are more prone to tinkering, keeping stuff private and blocking a lot of bullshit scripting, there is big dark area of Linux systems listing themselves as something else (usually Windows because of those asshole websites not playing well with Linux by design without an actual valid reason other than “we don’t like Linux”).
(PS: For the same reason a lot of sites believe I’m using Chrome. I don’t but I know they like to fuck with me when they see that Firefox user agent.)
Seriously… there will never be a wide-spread year of the Linux desktop. Because that would require lobbying and investments to get devices with pre-installed Linux by default to the clueless majority that doesn’t actually know what an OS is anyway.
And once a Linux distro goes commercial to fill that requirement it is incentivised to implement all the usual crap and enshittification that are missing in Linux normally.
Thing is you can often debunk any of these graphs for the same reason. Just a minority of Linux systems actually show up as Linux as the users are usually more inclined to block a lot of stuff for privacy reasons, then often also changing the user agent most tests fall back to.
No, I meant discovering that see-through area (space) by failing to find the (dark) matter expected there.
That’s actually dark matter they fail to see…
Sure… people spend hours in congested traffic because they love their cars so much, not because they lack alternatives for transportation. And it’s totally normal that I can pay less for 500g of cheap meat than for a 500g bag of rice, and that’s not caused by insane subsidies for meat producers.
The issues are systemic and guess what… the majority is not in power to change the system.
Yeah, we already knew how how propagandists operate. No need to spell it out what your are doing here.
Yeah, that’s a nice fairy tales to keep burning the planet.
In reality the main consumers are a handful of rich people including those owning the corporations and paying off politicians and media while 95% of the people would not consume anything if not forced to do it and are also contributing only a miniscule amount to the total consumption.
No, they were that big and indeed quite floppy, too (only half as thick as those 3.5" disks and from rather soft plastic).
I know Lemmy is very anti-AI
No, Lemmy isn’t very anti-AI, just very sane.
AI is a tool. If it does the job better than other tools that’s totally okay. It has so much potential to improve lives.
If on the other hand it’s about artificial general intelligence soon™ hallucinations, “we can totally replace all skilled workers”-fairy tales and other “stop using your brains and eat the slob”-bullshit it just needs to die… alongside the company CEOs snake oil buyers who (not so secretly anymore) dream about getting rid of all those pesky workers they have to pay proper wages.
And sadly 99% of the narratives we are constantly fed (and yes, that includes such “See Linus now supports AI! AI’s winning!!” bullshit stories, when it would be the perfect starting point to actually evaluate AI properly just once…) belong to the second category. Because AI companies in their insanity painted themselves into a corner. Their investments are insane, their market models unsustainable and telling the lie that everyone needs to use their AI and get integrated everywhere-even if it makes zero sense- is basically their only way to salvage something from that shitshow.
Do right-wing morons ever do something else than projecting their cultish mindset when talking about how the left is pushing ideology, virtual signaling (whatever the flavor of the month is…) and brigading?
(I would give him bonus points however for managing to cram the top3 of “tHe LeFt”-brain rot into a single statement. That’s actual dedication… or better training.)