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/)C
Posts
8
Comments
387
Joined
2 yr. ago

Independent thinker valuing discussions grounded in reason, not emotions.

Open to reconsider my views in light of good-faith counter-arguments but also willing to defend what's right, even when it's unpopular. My goal is to engage in dialogue that seeks truth rather than scoring points.

  • I've often thought about how fun it would be to get to play the "robber" in a police training scenario. I'd definitely join if there was something like this happening in my city, though I'd prefer it to be a more serious excercise.

    EDIT: The comments here are even more unsurprising that the fact that the sun rose this morning.

  • So it would have been fine if they hadn't asked? I don't get your point. Like I said: I don't think anyone denies that it's supposed to look like it was from the movie. It's not though. It's similar but is not the same. I don't see what the copyright infingement here is supposed to be. I don't think you can own the idea of a man in a trenchcoat overlooking a city with orange filter on it.

  • Yeah, no. This is like suing someone because their picture of the sunset looks similar to yours. Obviously, the image is supposed to resemble that movie - I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that - but I don’t see any copyright infringement here.

  • Do you think there shouldn't be any laws prohibiting the sharing of people's personal information like that?

  • They're not handing out personal information. If you hide stuff like that in your ad links then you're the malicious actor, not facebook.

  • I believe it's prohibited under GDPR as well as many local laws.

  • My name, address and phone number are public too but if you were to share it on social media you'd be breaking the law.

  • An advertiser contacts Facebook and says, 'We’d like to advertise this product to a specific group of people,' and Facebook says, 'Sure, hand us your money and the ad you'd like us to display,' and then targets that ad to the desired audience. At no point does Facebook hand over user data to the advertiser.

    For example, if I want to advertise my home renovation services to all the elderly home owners in my city, then what use would it be for me if they just handed me a list of those people? None. They're the advertising platform. It's them who targets those ads.

  • Tracking those jets isn’t the issue. It’s sharing that information publicly. Facebook doesn’t hand out your personal information to others, and if you think they do, then you don’t understand how targeted ads work.

  • I haven't seen any statistics suggesting Teslas crash more often than other vehicles.

  • Chad argument against AI

    Generative AI*

  • I assume you're a guy somewhere in their twenties.

    Start going to the gym and lifting weights. I know it’s a cliché, but it’s the single most impactful thing you can do - not only for how others see you, but also for how you see yourself. It’s something everyone should be doing anyway, but it especially applies to people like you. Don’t do it for them, do it for yourself. I know how you feel, believe me - I used to be in your shoes.

  • Nothing really. There are things I don't have much faith for, and some of those are ones I used to be more hopeful of before but I haven't exactly given up on anything.

  • I'm not sure when my childhood ended but I'd say my adulthood began the day I bought my first lawn mower

  • I'm not the person you originally replied to. At no point have I dismissed ChatGPT.

    I disagree with your logic about the definition of AI. Intelligence is the ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge. A chess-playing AI can see the board, understand the ramifications of each move, and respond to how the pieces are moved. That makes it intelligent - narrowly so, but intelligent nonetheless. And since it’s artificial too, it fits the definition of AI.

  • Recognizing colored blocks in an image was AI until someone figured out a good way to do it. Playing chess at grandmaster levels was AI until someone figured out how to do it.

    You make it sound like these systems stopped being AI the moment they actually succeeded at what they were designed to do. When you play chess against a computer it's AI you're playing against.

  • ChatGPT did not appear out of nowhere

    I agree.

    The key word there is seemingly. The technology itself had existed for a long time, but it wasn’t until the massive leap OpenAI made with it that it actually became popular. Before ChatGPT, 99% of people had never heard of LLMs, and now everyone has. That’s what I mean when I say it appeared seemingly out of nowhere - it took the masses by surprise. There’s no reason to assume another company working on a different approach to AI won’t make a similar massive breakthrough, giving us AI far more powerful than LLMs and taking everyone by surprise, despite the base technology having existed for a long time.

    A large language model is not AI

    It is AI though - a subset of generative AI to be specific, but it still falls under the AI category.

  • Those are not my words and you know it. You're misquoting me.

  • You're misquoting me. I haven't claimed LLMs appeared out of nowhere.