My worry is that the people we need engaged on AI because they have a healthy mindset to question and wrangle it, are instead being forced to ignore AI or pledge to be anti AI by their social circles and customers.

So instead we have absolute Kool aid drinkers driving the AI adoption.

We went through this with the internet but I think a lot of folks now are too young to remember it and unsurprisingly the people who were anti internet didn’t store their concerns and complaints in the currently used modern repository of all knowledge.

YuzuKey flavored verification cans can keep you authenticated for 2 to 8 hours.

Everything is guessing, only death is certain. I’ve worked with AI/ML for over 15 years long before folks got all hot and bothered by it. Your examples you give are great because if you walked up to a person and just said 5 you might get as random of answers and you gave.

Assuming by AI you mean LLMs, because that is what is hot on social media today, they use statistical probability models to be able to rate their input to output consistency. It is measurable but could never be 100%. No compute or person is 100%, but an LLM is orders of magnitude less consistent than traditional compute.

I use AI on a daily basis. I trust it less than people, but I also am able to feed it dumb questions which is nice.

No

AI is any compute model performing complex enough reasoning that the output does not always resemble the input. They are by definition non deterministic and the same ask can provide different outputs without being influenced by other inputs.

It is hardware. The embargo is on the connectivity silicon used in China because it is full of Chinese backdoors. Unlike the chips made elsewhere that have US backdoors

Making everything run ontop of an LLM was not non deterministic enough. Now with the power of cosmic rays we can guarantee the most non deterministic system possible. With such an unknown state we may finally achieve garbage in sometimes not garbage out compute. Invest in typewriters and monkeys today and you could be a partial owner of the entire works of Shakespeare soon™.

Are you recommending folks buy something from one of the companies that didn’t hire back the people? Or one of the fictional companies that did not use AI as an excuse for layoffs.

Marry the Mage, Fuck the Rogue, Kill the Warrior

The fact that consumers have LLM garbage shoved in their face doesn’t mean that the exponential increase in other ML use cases isn’t driving life saving technology. The COVID vaccine only deployed as fast as it did because of AI ML. 20% of surgeries right now are robot assisted and all of those use AI ML.

On a personal level I’ve been able to move my family to FOSS because of LLMs. LLMs are very good at understanding how open source software works and translating the workflows to human language. I personally can read man pages but others in my family honestly don’t want to have to in order to just watch a show on AppleTV. I can do this with a small local LLM running on a low wattage micro server.

We are seeing LLMs enabling us easily to overwrite the proprietary software in our home devices and take back hardware and improve repairability so we can stop producing so much E Waste. And the more that companies use LLM code to slop up their embedded devices the easier it becomes.

You can run AI without causing environmental problems just like you can drive cars without burning fossil fuels and you can have industrial production without creating pollutants.

All of that just cuts into the profits though.

So there are two sides. Everyone in the world falls into one these sides. And all of one side got together and came up with a new set of words. These words they demand everyone use and each has built into them explanations that men are bad.

Can you point to evidence that supports this theory? If it was half of the people I assume there are some large communities these words are heard often but I’ve never heard them.

Why do you think there are two sides and one of them is blaming men?

People seek confirmation that their negative traits are positive ones. Why put in effort to win, when you can just get an echo chamber to explain to you that you already won because of XYZ reason.

This isn’t limited to the manosphere stuff but it certainly is a big part of it. Any group that uses that other people are full of shit though as evidence that they are the good guys is also trying to pull the same trick.

There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke. Women received the ability to have their own bank account without a man co signing in 1974. That means MOST Gen X people, when they were born, their mothers were not legally allowed to have a bank account. That isn’t ancient history like some folks like to act it is.

When one divorced parent gets their toddler prescribed Adderall without the other parent being informed. AAP recommends against it for ages 3 (not 2 but 3) to 5 but it is allowed.

I’m not saying I even have an opinion on this, but I do think if someone said they think 3 is too young to take Adderall I think that doesn’t automatically tell me they are anti medicine or a bad person.

What does minorities have to do with this?

Armenian’s were a majority. The Fur people of Darfur are a majority in their region. Palestinians are a majority.

Genocide is a method often used in converting a majority to a minority.

I agree with your endpoint that those people don’t care, but I think if you told someone like that that they don’t care about minorities I think you would be confirming their thoughts not convincing them away from it.

Because I don’t think a 2 year old should be given Adderall without a parent knowing?

I personally am pretty open minded about these things, I was able to get birth control with my partner when I was 15 without her Catholic parents knowing. That was very important, but I recognize that if we were 10 it maybe becomes a different conversation involving parents.

You might say a parent could be included but you also have cases of divorced parents where one parent is for and another is against and there is a question of if the childs opinions are theirs or their parents. What age should the child be able to make the call? 15? 10? 5?

You’ve got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.

The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.

Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn’t how it works, that isn’t how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn’t lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.

The reasonable debate is at what age is that allowed. I do not think that has an easy answer other than legal age of majority for the country you are a citizen of. I think that the problem is there are harder answers than that worth seriously considering.

I can’t imagine thinking any medical procedure has a simple answer, especially anything that permanently alters you.

Medical professionals are people, sometimes they make the right choice, sometimes the wrong choice. There are people who shop for the wrong answer, and also people who get the wrong answer and live in suffering. It is important to question things and have a discourse.

If my 16 year old came to me and asked to have their hearing removed as a solution to their mispohonia and that their therapist agrees and they found a surgeon… I don’t think I could just jump on board with that call.