One is 25 €/month and on-demand, and the other costs more than I can afford and would probably be at inconvenient times anyway. Ideal? No, probably not. But it’s better than nothing.
I’m not really looking for advice either - just someone to talk to who at least pretends to be interested.
I wish I had Elon Musk money so I could buy this platform and turn it back to pictures only with the main focus on professional and hobbyist photographers - not pictures of food and selfies. It used to be one of the few social media platforms I actually liked.
Just a few days ago I was in a discussion about misgendering people online, and a lemmy.world mod who was advocating against it didn’t like my theory about why some people do it. Their response was to attack me personally by intentionally misgendering me and calling me a “lady.”
I’m not sure what their reasoning was there, but the only way I can interpret it is that they see women as the lesser sex - so by implying I’m not a guy, they’re saying I’m lesser as well.
The problem I'm dealing with right now is kind of a first world one in that I'm unable to ride my electric bicycle because the speed sensor is malfunctioning and the sensor from my other bike is incompatible as it's a 4-pin one and the other bike uses a 3-pin one. I do have a 3rd bike too but it's not fun to ride due to lack of electric assist.
Maybe so, but we already have an example of a generally intelligent system that outperforms our current AI models in its cognitive capabilities while using orders of magnitude less power and memory: the human brain. That alone suggests our current brute‑force approach probably won’t be the path a true AGI takes. It’s entirely conceivable that such a system improves through optimization - getting better while using less power, at least in the beginning.
I personally think the whole concept of AGI is a mirage. In reality, a truly generally intelligent system would almost immediately be superhuman in its capabilities. Even if it were no “smarter” than a human, it could still process information at a vastly higher speed and solve in minutes what would take a team of scientists years or even decades.
And the moment it hits “human level” in coding ability, it starts improving itself - building a slightly better version, which builds an even better version, and so on. I just don’t see any plausible scenario where we create an AI that stays at human-level intelligence. It either stalls far short of that, or it blows right past it.
If AI ends up destroying us, I’d say it’s unlikely to be because it hates us or wants to destroy us per se - more likely it just treats us the way we treat ants. We don’t usually go out of our way to wipe out ant colonies, but if there’s an anthill where we’re putting up a house, we don’t think twice about bulldozing it. Even in the cartoonish “paperclip maximizer” thought experiment, the end of humanity isn’t caused by a malicious AI - it’s caused by a misaligned one.
If you’re genuinely interested in what “artificial superintelligence” (ASI) means, you can just look it up. Zuckerberg didn’t invent the term - it’s been around for decades, popularized lately by Nick Bostrom’s book Superintelligence.
The usual framing goes like this: Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is an AI system with human-level intelligence. Push it beyond human level and you’re talking about Artificial Superintelligence - an AI with cognitive abilities that surpass our own. Nothing mysterious about it.
Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, right?