Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B
Posts
0
Comments
671
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Being concerned about at technology and being against that technology are not synonymous.

  • Companies and programmers who are using it for real world development don't care about $1000. A good programmer will run a company $10k or even $20k a month for their salary. If they can add even 50% to the output from that programmer they will throw $2000 a month at it and not even blink an eye.

    The Anti-AI folks don't talk to that kind of person much. They're not running in the same social circles.

    Meanwhile, I have a working application I built to replace a shitty corporate android app for a product I own that's used for my side hustle. Built using an agentic harness using a local opensource LLM. Coding such a thing myself was beyond my development skill level, and it probably would have cost $100k-200k to pay a programmer to rebuild it to the level that it's currently at now.

  • I only park in one specific aisle at Costco. I will wait for someone to walk back to their car just to get a spot there.

  • That has nothing to do with the technology. The last crash was caused by a global virus, and the one before that was the banking system...

  • For an equivalent prompt and similar quality answer, yes. Inference prices are dropping.

    However, higher quality answers (or more complex prompt handling) are currently going up in inference price.

    The fun part will be once quality hits a point where the average user (or even business) doesn't care about the incremental quality change any more. Then it's going to be a race to the bottom for performance per dollar.

    Who cares if the not all companies or investors make money? They can make their bets, some will win and some will lose. I just want better tech for cheaper prices.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • We're all products of our environment.

    The ironic part about your statement is that you seem to have negative feelings towards your parents open sexuality, but there are cultures where that's within the realm of normal. It just so happens that the environment you were raised in outside your home happens to consider the environment you were raised in inside your home dysfunctional.

    Especially in areas of extreme poverty, there often isn't enough space for privacy, so it just isn't a thing. If you have a single room hut with 14 children... that didn't happen because the parents snuck off into the bushes every time. It's not considered improper or dysfunctional.

  • When they start acting like it.

  • First three always, fourth sometimes, definitely not the last two.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • You still don't get it.

    You don't need to eat Lettuce to be healthy, you've been taught to think that way but it's not even close to the truth.

    Do you think that people 100 years ago had fresh produce all the time? That's not how it worked for most of human history and they definitely ate healthier than we do now.

    Frozen vegetables don't have extra salt. Canned sometimes does but a) salt isn't unhealthy and b) you can rinse them to get most of it off if you wanted.

    Juice is not healthy. That's pure marketing bullshit. It's almost as bad as soda.

    Your mindset is wrong. You expect what society has told you to to do. That's expensive because our society is built around selling you shit you don't need.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • This is only true if you have fallen into the trap of not understanding what healthy means.

    Eating healthy can actually be very cheap, you just won't get to eat the things that societies thinks are exciting or the most delicious. You won't be getting "I can't believe it's not meat" and the latest type of chia seed detox bullshit.

    You can eat rice, lentils, onions, carrots, potatoes, oats, chickpeas, beans, tomatoes, bananas, and some dairy products and keep your meal prices down to less than a dollar while filling all nutritional requirements.

    A basic Indian Dahl on rice works out to significantly less than a dollar per serving if you buy the ingredients in more than single use packages, 500 calories, 17 grams of protein, 8 grams of fat, and 80 grams of carbs for $0.75 is pretty fucking healthy.

    Two servings of oats and a banana for breakfast? 50 cents, for again around 500 calories, 17 grams of protein (mostly the oats), and 7 grams of fat. You could splurge on a bit of yogurt and keep it under a dollar easily.

    In terms of "effort" if you consider cooking 10 portions of Dahl for an hour and then freezing them individually to be too much effort, you don't actually care about the cost of eating, you're just too lazy.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • That last thing could be said for most humans, especially those in the lower salary brackets. We still employ them in droves, and supervisors to supervise them too.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Many hours a day. I have kids that still need my attention, we all eat dinner together, watch shows or play games together, I drive them to their sports, etc.

  • Just look at the data, there are historical records going back a century in many locations around the US. Find one close to you and do some digging.

    The simple answer is that crazy does happen, and has happened historically, but it's much more common now than it used to be.

  • Good movie, good acting, and even though the tech was absolutely silly the core concept is still as valid today as it was 30 years ago.

  • The Net (1995)

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Your analogy is bad.

    The human brain doesn't need a massive data center, but neither does the compute to run a single agent.

    We build entire cities to apply multiple human brains to problems.

  • Lots of AI hatred driving these. All emotional though rather than objective.

    The question itself is also pretty stupid. My kids do "art" and it's absolute slop. Most human made art is terrible, and never sees the light of day. It's thrown in a recycle bin, forgotten by the mind, or sung to a shower wall.

    A bunch of Art contests with AI winners (unknown by judges) have shown AI art can be as good or better than something done by an artist. This isn't just for visual art either, they have been popular at producing songs too.

    It feels like a lot of people are trying to reframe "art" as only things that have intentional meaning or an emotional story, rather than things you enjoy seeing and or hearing (or other senses).

    AI songs can make me feel just as good as something from a musician. I don't need all the "I saw them in person and got the t-shirt" bragging rights to enjoy them. I haven't heard an AI song that's as good as the best human made songs yet, but I've definitely heard AI songs that are far better than some of the worst human made songs (Anyone remember Rebecca Black?)

    I have real paintings up on my walls, from artists I've never heard of, with images of things I have no connection or knowledge of. I didn't buy them, they were purchased by someone else. They still look nice. Would I even be able to tell if they were AI? Probably not.

    Does that mean that I can't also enjoy specific pieces of art made by specific artists? Absolutely not. I will continue listening to Sandstorm by Darude until I die. I love a good Keanu Reeves movie. An Anne McCaffrey or Terry Pratchett Book.

    AI art is a reflection of human art, so it must have some good parts. Will it take over all art? Never. Does anyone want it to? No.

    Just like recordings of music didn't kill live music, AI art will not kill real artists. It will definitely shake up the financial side of it though.

  • Using paid help from a third world country to tie them for you as their only job.

  • Rag was never supposed to be about learning over time. It was supposed to provide better context at inference. It could never scale to handle new learning beyond focused concepts.