There are rings to make that more convenient.
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 631
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 631
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
Uh... edited images are photoshopped. That's kind of what that word means, despite what Adobe's lawyers would like people to say.
AI is far from perfect and makes all sorts of weird mistakes, but so do people.
I gotta pull you up on this one. Realistically, they're not in the same ballpark. The mistakes made by people are so minor and infrequent they can be trusted to perform brain surgery, and the kinds of mistakes made are things like 'we miscounted the sponges on 1 out of 1000 surgeries,' or 'I took too little tissue and didn't get all the red cancer out of the identically red tissue because I was trying to conserve quality of life,' while LLMs are doing the equivalent of hallucinating a spleen inside someone's head or ignoring the cancer to look for cankers. You can't even rightly call of a mistake because the LLM isn't 'trying to do something and failing.' It's just producing probabilities and we're hoping they're useful.
When it's really important to get something right, we have a person double check the work of the first person, which they can do, because they are grounded in reality. When you want to check the output of AI, you use a person for the same reason. AI has no grounding in reality, only words, which are famously not the same thing as reality if you have an intellectual age greater than seven.
If murderers can feel no remorse for violently ending people's lives, corporate employees can certainly feel clean. Given the old 'there is no ethical consumption' there's arguably no one who should feel clean but most people think they are, on a basic level, good.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
You think they think it makes them morally superior to other people? Or that it's a method of protest? I think you might be overthinking this. People like free games they might play at some point. They do it for the free games, not to feel superior. If you think they are belittling you for not getting the free games, your parents really did a number on your self-esteem.
not fixed [amount]
... to quantify... seems a fraught endeavor
And yet people have calculated it in the past and do so regularly. It's their job. We aren't qualified or trained to do it but they are, so they do.
adequate funding of medical care for seniors
This is where the moral arguments come in and society either taxes corporations more than the productivity gain because people are more important than company profits, or denies service to the elderly because company profits are more important than people. It would be a twisted ideological view that the tax has to be precisely equal to the value given to the companies, regardless of outcome.
If you're five? Hmm.
You know money? Well, almost everybody has very little of it because it's being horded. This means people want ways to get more of it. One way people get money is to make bets.
Bets are an agreement to pay a given amount of money if a certain event takes place, like your big brother winning his sports game. You could bet me a cookie that he'll win, and I could bet he'd lose. If he wins, I give you a cookie. If he loses, you give me a cookie.
Now, because your big brother is so cool, I might think it's really unlikely he'd lose, so to make it fairer, I might want you to give me ten cookies if he loses, while I still only give you one if he wins. With such a cool big brother who's so good at sports, you might still think it's worth the small risk to get a cookie.
Now, because someone can get lucky and make lots of money from a small bet by guessing the unlikely thing is going to happen, a lot of people REALLY like betting.
However, people around the betting people also see many of those people betting and losing everything, which is really bad for that person and usually bad for everyone around them too. To try to prevent this, people create rules that say 'no betting.'
Now, as you probably have experienced, a rule against something doesn't mean people don't want to do it. You don't suddenly NOT want to play games because the rules say you have to go to class. The people who want to make bets, still want to make bets.
So, a group of people built a website where you can enter 'contracts,' where, based on an event in the world, people can agree to have paid each other. You could offer a contract that says you'll put 50 pennies into a bag, and anyone who wants to can put another 50 pennies into the bag, and then you both will seal the bag and whoever correctly predicted the result gets to take the bag home. If you think no one would want to take that contract, you can also offer to put in more and let the other person put in less so you and they feel like it's fair.
Now, the people who made the website made this process easier and faster by making the bags and pennies digital. This means you can set up 100 bags or 1000 or even more without having to carry all those coins. They also help you find people who want to take the other side of the contract, tell you what amounts of pennies people are putting into similar bags for their contracts, and act as a mostly neutral outsider to hold the bag until the contract is done. This is technically work, even if the works is mostly done by their computers, so they take a handful of pennies from each bag before handing it to the person who made the correct prediction. Those people are polymarket/kalshi/etc.
Now, you might be thinking, 'That just sounds like betting.' The important distinction is that it's not called betting. Because 'entering contracts' is not against the rules, people are free to risk their money in a very similar way to betting without technically breaking the rules because the rules say 'no betting.'
The rising wages of NHS healthcare workers are only a problem if the taxes are not being levied to cover it from the profits the care enables. Without medical care, companies would have more lost productivity, which is the non-moral/economic motivation for an NHS. If the extra productivity were reclaimed in the form of corporate taxes, there would be no budgeting shortfall.
I can't remember now. It's been a while.
I started it once but got distracted. Been meaning to watch it.
It's not so much the CEO's direct pay. It's what they are paid to do. CEOs generally get paid to maximise shareholder dividends and stock value, which leads to them doing anything they can to minimise the staff's wages, and minimising the staff in general, to keep down costs, especially in something where inputs and outputs are not strictly correlated, like medicine, where you can't hire 10% more nurses and expect to get 10% more patients paying bills. The CEO's work probably hurts everyone involved except for the shareholders, but it increases profit margin so they do it.
A look or two is normal. Looking at sexy people scratches the feelgood brain bits. Changing your path to gawk is getting a bit sketchy. You should probably masturbate a bit more often, or better yet, find someone to share orgasms with. You're craving it.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
We don't have dumb AI because we are afraid to 'let them off the chain.' This is pretty much it for LLMs in terms of capability. 'Agentic' might get a little better at some point but it isn't going to be 'real AI' without years of user data, years of training, and as-of-yet non-existent technology.
As for your question... I deny the premise. There is nothing to stop anyone if it is possible to do a thing. Right now, for the cost of a car, if a person had the knowledge and will, they could buy a synth bio lab for their garage and build a pandemic. You, just like so many others, could build a truck bomb capable of destroying a building. People regularly design destructive computer software as a hobby. People, mostly but not only Americans, can acquire guns and shoot dozens of people before anyone can stop them. There is literally no direct way to prevent any of these things. The thing that keeps us from having massive attacks every day is simply not many people have the inclination.
No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk offered a great service to entice users, then got advertisers on board as clients, then sucked the value out of what the users and clients received in order to extract maximum value?
Or maybe they just believe in morality. The warrior, the politician, and the sadist talk about effectiveness as they wear the mask of the revolutionary. The pacifist says 'I will not do evil, regardless of what prognosticators think it will lead to.' In a way it can be called selfish, a refusal to dirty oneself by doing harm. In another, it is the most sincere adherence to the morals for which the others say they are fighting, allowing even their own death rather than hurting others. The pacifist and the liberal both say 'peace' but the liberal will pull a knife if you say no.
Poe's Law in action.
I'm not saying he can't post, just that he has done so many times and hasn't really shown any signs of improvement. This comic is... inoffensive at least.
Yeah, I started out saying 'Keep trying, Jay,' but they just kept not being funny, and then they did some weird fascist ones and I settled on 'Maybe comics just aren't their thing. Maybe they should try something else.'
They've both been mentioned below but mine are 'Grave of the Fireflies,' and 'When the Wind Blows.' They hit harder than 'horror' movies because they are, in a way, the real human horror for which a 'genre:horror' movie would be an abstraction.
Because no one I'm seeing in these comments is bringing it up, there is something to be said for wanting to do a thing yourself. Sure, if the goal is just orgasms, shove her on a sybian and go play video games. It'll be very efficient. However, if your goal is to engage in a shared experience where each of you is dedicating yourself to the labor of pleasuring the other in the most intimate way possible, even if it doesn't result in an orgasm, then the vibrator is not working toward your goal. Look at oral. Almost no person is going to orgasm from giving oral. We do it as an act of love, giving pleasure to a partner without pleasure being automatically recieved. A vibe will make your partner cum whether or not you are there. The genAI of orgasms, a machine producing using raw electric power what a person would produce using skill and emotion. Using it doesn't have the same demonstration effect. There is a special satisfaction in being the one who puts in the work to bring a partner to orgasm, and a special satisfaction that comes from being the one they are willing to put real effort into bringing to an orgasm. Which one matters more to you is subjective but this take is overly flattening while pretending to be enlightened.