Yeah, because it’s good stuff to point out and think on… But ultimately inconsequential as the previous comment points out. The world is getting AI eventually, the question is do we want to be the first ones with the keys?

All the same arguments could have been made about the internet. Inb4 someone makes the incredibly likewarm take that the internet was a mistake. It was inevitable, if we had “pumped-the-brakes” on it we wouldn’t have found some clean way to implement the internet where no one gets hurt. Someone who wasn’t concerned about ethics would have got there first to set the standard.

Actually a better analogy for AI might be the nuclear bomb. If we slow down someone else will get their first. Silicone Valley doesn’t have the best track record with ethics. But call me crazy, I’d rather them figure it out before China or Russia. Because they sure as shit ain’t using their brakes.

Well if he said he’d do what it takes, would that make you feel better? Because you know “his all” is all he has right? And if he gave all of it, should he be ashamed?

One of the key features of capitalism is that it keeps the masses in service. When we’re working to make the CEOs rich we don’t have time to rally against them. They make us complicit in the system. It’s why they try and pay talent as little as possible. Sometimes the same amount as someone who slacks off all day. Because the longer it takes us to retire the longer we’ll be in service to them. Once there’s nothing for us to do anymore, my hope is that people will realize that the rich and powerful don’t deserve to hold the keys to society. My fear is that corps will slowly transition everyone into mindless drones hitting a “Do my job, AI” button all day and nothing will change.

Wholeheartedly agree! I would love for us to seamlessly transition into a society with automated surplus where people never have to worry about how they’ll feed themselves. But I have a feeling that the transition will be a lot more rough than that unfortunately. And we’re starting to see that now.

This is sort of where I get confused about people pissed at Taylor Swift for having a private jet. Like I totally understand that some of the trips have been shown to be unnecessary and I agree. But how many sports teams and equipment do we transport for greater carbon emissions to bring joy to a fraction as many people? Like think about an American football game, world cup game, Olympics, F1 race, Golf tournament… hell even Burning Man? I feel like it’s just low hanging fruit for her critics to stir up shit.

So AI is invalidating capitalism because it’s showing that people’s value shouldn’t be tied to what they can produce… And you’re mad at that too? It’s so weird to me to see people mad that AI is not allowing them to participate in capitalism when they themselves have a dislike for capitalism. Like… I understand the immediate problem is because of AI… but it’s highlighting so beautifully the main problem of capitalism. Which is the real problem.

AI is like the climate change of the economy. We all knew automation was coming and would be the death knell for capitalism. But now that it’s one or the other, people are choosing capitalism because it’s what they know. Even people that are still outspoken anti-capitalist! What we should be fighting for is more open sourced models and AI projects.

Where I think she has a point (whoever she is) is that most people don’t repetitively prove science’s principles themselves. So for the vast majority of people that believe in science, they take their world view on faith from a book written by someone they don’t know.

They grow up with the understanding that it’s the truth, so they accept it. They have no idea how to actually follow the scientific process and test the theories themselves, they just trust the authority of the institution distributing the knowledge.

You might think this is a false equivalency. But with religion collapsing more and more each day, they’ve mapped their bullshit quite nicely on to science. Generating plenty of pseudoscience for anyone who believes in science but is made uncomfortable by its findings. Religion lives on in how the masses actually perceive science. Because the mechanism is no different:

I don’t understand the universe, but I have faith that someone does. I’ll put them in charge so they can give me the bullet points of how I should live.

Too late. Biden made himself SCOTUS and changed back the rule, effective next term. Then replaced SCOTUS with the cast of Arrested Development.

It’s still ideas the group agrees with. The idea is: that we all disagree with this idea. It’s subtle, until you look at the same story on CNN vs Fox. Two bubbles discussing the same issue with two VERY different emotional valences.

To put it another way: the discussion of these ideas that are oppositional to the community, is not with the intention of seriously considering them. It’s with the intention of dismissing them in a group act of catharsis. It maintains the bubble and safely dispatches an idea that threatened to burst it.

We also do it to ourselves. Everyone has someone in their life they’d rather mute. But they’re forced to coexist with them. Online is so appealing because you can find communities of like minded individuals. Then forget all about those other opinions you don’t like.

You grow in this bubble as they grow in theirs. By the next time you’re forced to interact, you feel so alien and unpleasant to one another it’s confusing and frightening. Corporations are right there to sell you on a story about how the other side are demons destroying the world. We gobble it up.

Actors are not and should not be responsible for gun safety on set. You expect a low IQ former drama kid with a coke habit who worships scientology from a country where it’s not even legal to own a firearm to be responsible? When every other scene in an action film explicitly requires that they break every single one of the 4 rules of gun safety?

Trusting actors who studied Shakespeare in college to be responsible for determining if a prop is actually a lethal weapon is absurd. That’s why there’s a trained person on set where that’s literally their whole responsibility. I like Baldwin’s acting. I’ve also heard he’s shitty to his daughter. I’m not defending him as a person. I’m defending him because he’s innocent of this charge. His job was to point something that resembled a gun at someone and pull the trigger. It was someone else’s to ensure that would be a safe action.

The best one I’ve used for coding is the InelliJ AI. Idk how they trained that sucker but it’s pretty good at ripping through boiler plate code and structuring new files / methods based off how your project is already setup. It still has those little hallucinations especially when you ask it to figure out more niche tasks. But It’s really increased my productivity. Especially when getting a new repo setup. (I work with micro services)

Glad to hear that. The top comment is talking about the people that do think the rich should be killed. And those people co-existing with people that empathize with Paris Hilton on lemmy.

But why doesn’t that apply when the guillotine is getting rolled out?

There’s projects that fully replace the Google Home Mini mobo. No reason you couldn’t do that with Alexa

The only person in this thread who seems intent on pepe being about hate speech is you. I’ve been asked in some formal settings to avoid using the OK hand sign in case it sends the wrong message. I’ve been advised by tattoo artists to avoid Nordic symbols despite the fact that I’m of Scandinavian descent. You’re enabling the worst kind of people to decide what symbols mean in our culture. Why?

That’s your position. Not mine. They can’t have shit, because I won’t let them

• Ok symbol
• Runes and Nordic symbols
• Raised fist
• Many songs
• Coors Beer

Just off the top of my head those are a few. And that’s with people holding the line and continuing to use these symbols without hate. We don’t need more people defending their claims.

If you let them dictate what is theirs, they’ll take everything.