Maybe you don't read the same articles that I read, but I very much have seen people claiming the things that the article is fighting against.
Here's something you should consider. The big AI companies just released a statement saying we should be worried about AI killing everyone accidentally in the future or some such s***. But if they're selling vaporware, and they know it, and they realize the only thing they actually created was fairly powerful LLMs, they would be desperate to cover up that fact. They would be desperate to make themselves relevant, to pretend that AI is going somewhere when it isn't.
Another way of looking at things as that author has also written is that we're looking at definitional questions where the people selling us things are liars. If you point out that their technology hasn't matched the promises that they made, they will counter by pointing at some advanced statistical methods. If you point out that AI drive-thrus are a failure, and that AI at Pizza Hut has destroyed hundreds of franchises to the point that they sued corporate, then they'll respond by talking about how intelligent ChatGPT sounds.
So at some point if you want to have a sensible conversation about AI, you need to start to define what you're talking about. Or you could pretend that there is no need to define things to deflect from the issue, so that nobody reading would learn anything about the world.
Of course they want to hype their shit. Pretend the sky is falling (when it's not) so that you need regulation on AI so that open source and Chinese companies can be blocked out. Get that lock-in before the bubble bursts, fuck yeah.
A growing trend of supermarkets selling a cheaper, less nutritious alternative to tinned mackerel is an example of "skimpflation", a consumer group has said.
Princes - which supplies major supermarkets - has substituted jack mackerel, an entirely different species, for mackerel, with similar tins also being sold by Lidl.
Those sick bastards talk about AI. Seriously, nobody cares about that. Stop selling snake oil.
Google Drive and Microsoft Office and the Apple Store and the Play Store and all the back doors that those three companies have into Canadian businesses, lives, and government offices ... those are the real vulnerabilities.
If ChatGPT turned off next week only for Canada, normal life would go on. So don't waste our time with that topic.
This headline perfectly illustrates how you can say nothing at all.
Who is the US? Are we talking about some of the citizens? The president? The military? And then who is they? And who is us?
We can use all of these pronouns and generic categories and if we don't actually specify the people in them, then nobody learns anything. And if you can't, write an informative headline, maybe you shouldn't be a journalist.
It's an interesting question because there's no benefit to the country to keeping them locked up in Japan for 10 years as opposed to 1 year. Will they be able to cut some kind of deal? No matter what happens once they get thrown out of the country they'll never be allowed back.
He's lying. They are all always lying. AI is 99% vaporware. But they want jobs and money, so they're desperate enough to tell us what AI will someday become (because it's not what they promised what it would be by now).
The title is pointless. Some Democrats will go pro-corporate, and always have. Other Democrats will not...
As always, details matter, do your research, and keep pressure on people to act properly. Or else you'll definitely get fucked. And you might get fucked anyway. (This is generally true for all government through all human history.)
I find it so interesting when the centrists claim that universal healthcare is unaffordable. Cuz, uh, you know what's even less affordable? Whatever yalls have right now. And you know it, but fuck the facts.
Your disclaimer is false. You said the post isn't about AI but it's entirely about AI. Because look, we all know that there's a backlash against AI. We all know that if you're planning an event, you probably shouldn't use AI if you aren't ready to piss off people who don't like it... That's the reality. Now, you could wish that reality were different, but it's not a big burden to say hey, don't have AI make the poster, just make it yourself. It's really not that hard.
Now, you also mentioned people who were accused of using AI when they didn't. Of course, that's not cool... But this is not a problem of reactions to AI. It's a problem of not fact checking. And if you came here telling us that people should fact-check better, or properly, than I think everyone would agree with you.
In summary, I think your post does the opposite of what you claim you want it to do. You don't want people to be divisive, but you've intentionally created a divisive set of guidelines. And then you've told people to shut up but you know they're not going to which means you're just looking for an argument... I guess this entire strategy bores me.
But you posted in the right place, so it's all good.
You're making a statistical claim and the statistics don't support you. Although you personally are paranoid, in reality, children have gone around the neighborhood almost entirely safely for almost all of human history.
Of course there is some element of risk. That's true for life, for everyone, forever. But until you have solid data that says the kids shouldn't be able to go a very short distance to a place that they know how to get to safely, then you're speculating about what could possibly go wrong. And that's just a waste of time from a public policy perspective.
Maybe you don't read the same articles that I read, but I very much have seen people claiming the things that the article is fighting against.
Here's something you should consider. The big AI companies just released a statement saying we should be worried about AI killing everyone accidentally in the future or some such s***. But if they're selling vaporware, and they know it, and they realize the only thing they actually created was fairly powerful LLMs, they would be desperate to cover up that fact. They would be desperate to make themselves relevant, to pretend that AI is going somewhere when it isn't.
Another way of looking at things as that author has also written is that we're looking at definitional questions where the people selling us things are liars. If you point out that their technology hasn't matched the promises that they made, they will counter by pointing at some advanced statistical methods. If you point out that AI drive-thrus are a failure, and that AI at Pizza Hut has destroyed hundreds of franchises to the point that they sued corporate, then they'll respond by talking about how intelligent ChatGPT sounds.
So at some point if you want to have a sensible conversation about AI, you need to start to define what you're talking about. Or you could pretend that there is no need to define things to deflect from the issue, so that nobody reading would learn anything about the world.
Of course they want to hype their shit. Pretend the sky is falling (when it's not) so that you need regulation on AI so that open source and Chinese companies can be blocked out. Get that lock-in before the bubble bursts, fuck yeah.
tl;dr
Calls for arrests. Not investigations.
Those sick bastards talk about AI. Seriously, nobody cares about that. Stop selling snake oil.
Google Drive and Microsoft Office and the Apple Store and the Play Store and all the back doors that those three companies have into Canadian businesses, lives, and government offices ... those are the real vulnerabilities.
If ChatGPT turned off next week only for Canada, normal life would go on. So don't waste our time with that topic.
Look, that's great, but facts don't matter. The whole point of fascism is that nobody else matters.
We all know how Trump feels about people of color and women. And children. None of this is a secret.
And even if it would, would that not indicate that the "economy" is a shitty metric? Lol.
This headline perfectly illustrates how you can say nothing at all.
Who is the US? Are we talking about some of the citizens? The president? The military? And then who is they? And who is us?
We can use all of these pronouns and generic categories and if we don't actually specify the people in them, then nobody learns anything. And if you can't, write an informative headline, maybe you shouldn't be a journalist.
How to say you don't understand cooking without saying you don't understand cooking.
It's an interesting question because there's no benefit to the country to keeping them locked up in Japan for 10 years as opposed to 1 year. Will they be able to cut some kind of deal? No matter what happens once they get thrown out of the country they'll never be allowed back.
He's lying. They are all always lying. AI is 99% vaporware. But they want jobs and money, so they're desperate enough to tell us what AI will someday become (because it's not what they promised what it would be by now).
Holy fuck this is brilliant.
The question is historical but posed as a tech choice. Convenience is the answer now.
Which Democrats? You did not clarify, and it matters, especially when you are using defeatist rhetoric...
The title is pointless. Some Democrats will go pro-corporate, and always have. Other Democrats will not...
As always, details matter, do your research, and keep pressure on people to act properly. Or else you'll definitely get fucked. And you might get fucked anyway. (This is generally true for all government through all human history.)
#precrime #thoughtcrime
I find it so interesting when the centrists claim that universal healthcare is unaffordable. Cuz, uh, you know what's even less affordable? Whatever yalls have right now. And you know it, but fuck the facts.
Your disclaimer is false. You said the post isn't about AI but it's entirely about AI. Because look, we all know that there's a backlash against AI. We all know that if you're planning an event, you probably shouldn't use AI if you aren't ready to piss off people who don't like it... That's the reality. Now, you could wish that reality were different, but it's not a big burden to say hey, don't have AI make the poster, just make it yourself. It's really not that hard.
Now, you also mentioned people who were accused of using AI when they didn't. Of course, that's not cool... But this is not a problem of reactions to AI. It's a problem of not fact checking. And if you came here telling us that people should fact-check better, or properly, than I think everyone would agree with you.
In summary, I think your post does the opposite of what you claim you want it to do. You don't want people to be divisive, but you've intentionally created a divisive set of guidelines. And then you've told people to shut up but you know they're not going to which means you're just looking for an argument... I guess this entire strategy bores me.
But you posted in the right place, so it's all good.
I walked home from kindergarten. It was like 10 blocks. There were a few turns. And there was never any problem because of course there wasn't.
You're making a statistical claim and the statistics don't support you. Although you personally are paranoid, in reality, children have gone around the neighborhood almost entirely safely for almost all of human history.
Of course there is some element of risk. That's true for life, for everyone, forever. But until you have solid data that says the kids shouldn't be able to go a very short distance to a place that they know how to get to safely, then you're speculating about what could possibly go wrong. And that's just a waste of time from a public policy perspective.