Lemmy prefers Star Trek over Star Wars.
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 1774
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 1774
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Are people anti non-generative AI? Or is broader AI just getting dragged in to the justified anti genAI sentiment?
I formed this question to myself and was about to post it, but then I remembered Lemmy also hates self-driving cars which are likely Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) or Recurrent Nerual Networks (RNN) which are not part of Generative AI at all.
I’m guessing the chip in the finished product would be taxed separately, otherwise it would be trivial to dodge the tariff (just package the chip in a different “finished product” and move it to a US-made product).
You'd guess wrong. Welcome to the wonderful world of tariffs and import/export controls!
I wouldn't call it a trivial dodge because the act of building the tariffed good into another product takes time and resources at the origin side, then again at the destination side to undo the manufacturing steps. However, sometimes its worth it to a company. There are lots of examples of companies doing exactly this.
Ford Transit Connect cargo vans were made in Turkey. Ford wanted to import them to the USA. However, there was a tariff placed on vehicles for commercial use, so Ford installed cheap passengers seats in the back and imported them as passenger vehicles. As soon as the vehicles would arrive onshore in the USA, Ford would rip the cheap seats out, and sell them as commercial vehicles.
Wouldn't this only affect goods manufactured in the USA? If a finished product containing chips from say, Europe, were to land on USA shores it would only have a 15% tariff right?
Why does trump hate American manufacturing?
Middle right looks like "Sex and the City"
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The Cardassians are subtly showing their disregard for sentient life here.
Cardassians are showing their disregard for their underlings and forced labor prisoners. Very on-brand for Cardassians.
Do not change the start date with your new employer. If you do, you are indicating that you are putting your new employer second and your old employer first. Don't do that.
Your thoughts about extending with your old employer are working to solve a problem that isn't yours to solve. If you leave on time as planned, you won't be employed at the old employer. None of the problems of old employer should concern you.
Lastly, there is a chance you are stealing an opportunity from your coworker. If the old employer really needs coverage then they will quickly learn how valuable your coworker is....unless delay your departure and solve the problem for your old employer. Don't do that. Let your coworker demand a king's ransom for delaying their vacation, or a hefty raise when they return because they are the only ones that do the job after you're gone. Additionally, maybe this will teach your old employer they need to staff up in your department so there aren't just two people in this critical role.
You delaying your start date with new employer breaks all of that.
but if drinking was virtuous, the right thing to do, would it be hypocritical for blarghly to drink?
They are equally neutral because the choices we make for ourselves don't affect others. blarghly chose to think the opposite of that, that those that eat sugary cereals, and the people that eat them, are making bad choices.
I interpret that it’s treated as hypocrisy to mean that drinking is bad, that blarghly probably shouldn’t drink.
Were the original subtext your only context clues, I could understand that take. However, I have repeatedly clarified that I don't care other people drink. With that, I'm not sure why you still feel the subtextual reading is the right one. If you don't trust my clarification, then okay, but that means there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise so I'm not sure if there's more to talk about.
Multiple impenetrable, isolated AI expert systems that make rule based decisions (unlike black boxes, eg. LLMs).
Two problems. First, AI give answers built from models fed by training data. Where are you going to get this training data? How will you ensure that the data itself doesn't have bias baked into it? This has been a problem already because the data we've fed into AI models for training reflects our human (many times misogynistic and racist) notions. As an example: Lets say your AI model is designed to select the best person for President of the United States. The training data we'd have is: all past US presidents
As we have yet to elect a woman President, one obvious criteria the model will incorporate is: "candidate must be male"
Obviously we know that's not the case, but all of our past behavior has shown this is a requirement for Presidency and that is all the model knows.
A second problem even after the model is built is introduced bias. As in, the operator of the model, especially in non-black-box AI is to change the weights of what factors are considered more or less important in the final answer. Show me who, in your AI technocracy, will control the introduced bias, and I'll show you who is actually making the desicions.
contribute to a notion and the decision will be picked much like in a distributed system, for fairness and equality.
Who is determining what is "fair" and "equal" is? We have seen there are certain groups that are trying to push the stupid notion that white people should be in charge. If these morons are included in the group that decides what "fair or "equal" is, then the resulting AI answers will just as racist.
Then humans are involved, but they too are educated, elected individuals and some clauses that stop them from gaming the system and corrupting it.*
This bolded part is the absolute hardest part, and your whole description is kind of handwaving it away. The whole of humanity has been looking for a system of leadership that is incorruptible. We haven't found one yet, and your clauses here would be the magic to any system irrespective of AI or not involved.
I appreciate you seeing a problem and trying to propose a solution. Don't let me stop you, but incorporate my feedback and others into your thoughts and see where it takes you. I'd love for you to find something we could use.
but this reads to me as a judgement on blarghly for both implying judgment on other people
Yes, that was my intention.
and for drinking
No, that is NOT my intention.
(I doubt it would have been used as an example of hypocrisy otherwise),
The drinking example was that blarghly was clearly criticizing other for their choices of what they put in their bodies because it is unhealthy while ignoring blarghly is also putting something in their body (alcohol) which could easily be criticized for being unhealthy. blarghly was demonstrating "Rules for thee, but not for me". That rubbed me the wrong way.
then I read it as about how you make the superior decision to not judge people for drinking.
If you're referring to the later posts in the thread, you should notice I was using blarghly's exact words except replacing "sugary cereal" with "alcohol". I was doing that NOT because I care they drink, but to show blarghly how unfaithful their argument was but showing it in the context of blarghly's own vice. I honestly don't care if people drink or not. I choose not to, but I also don't criticize others that choose to. What I was criticizing blarghly for was their hypocrisy, not their drinking.
We have used water before lithium, and it isn’t bad at all.
Not so great in a flat dry desert though. Pump storage is great when there is lots of water and a naturally occurring elevation, but there's lots of places on Earth that don't have that, but do have energy to store.
This is big! Grid scale Sodium Ion battery technology is (on paper) the best candidate for cheap large scale electricity storage. The fact that this company is working on 9 pilot deployments mean that this will likely produce the real world results that the paper exercises promise.
There are SO MANY advantages of Sodium Ion battery tech for grid storage over everything else we've used so far (nearly all Lithium based).
Sodium Ion batteries:
- don't have as intense thermal management needs Lithium chemistries
- don't have the massive negative environmental impact for their source materials (because its a part of regular old table/sea salt)
- doesn't have the massive swings in capacity when operated in extreme hot or cold temperatures. Sodium Ion doesn't care.
The only downsides to Sodium Ion is that the batteries are physically larger for the same amount of energy stored (which isn't a problem for stationary storage), and the charging/discharging curves are not as linear as other chemistries (which again, isn't an issue because these are purpose built applications where the curves can easily be managed by battery management systems).
Did the car try to stop and fail to do so in time due to the speeding, or did the car not try despite expected collision detection behavior?
From the article, it looks like the car didn't even try to stop because the driver was overridden by the acceleration because the driver had their foot pressed on the pedal (which isn't normal during autopilot use).
I feel like calling it AutoPilot is already risking liability,
From an aviation point of view, Autopilot is pretty accurate to the original aviation reference. The original aviation autopilot released in 1912 for aircraft would simply hold an aircraft at specified heading and altitude without human input where it would operate the aircraft's control surfaces to keep it on its directed path. However, if you were at an altitude that would let you fly into a mountain, autopilot would do exactly that. So the current Tesla Autopilot is pretty close to that level of functionality with the added feature of maintaining a set speed too. Note, modern aviation autopilot is much more functional in that it can even land and takeoff airplanes for specific models
Full Self Driving is just audacious. There’s a reason other companies with similar technology have gone with things like driving assistance. This has probably had lawyers at Tesla sweating bullets for years.
I agree. I think Musk always intended FSD to live up to the name, and perhaps named it that aspirationally, which is all well and good, but most consumers don't share that mindset and if you call it that right now, they assume it has that functionality when they buy it today which it doesn't. I agree with you that it was a legal liability waiting to happen.
Don't take my post as a defense of Tesla even if there is blame on both sides here. However, I lay the huge majority of it on Tesla marketing.
I had to find two other articles to figure out if the system being used here was Tesla's free included AutoPilot, or the more advanced paid (one time fee/subscription) version called Full Self Drive (FSD). The answer for this case was: Autopilot.
There are many important distinctions between the two systems. However Tesla frequently conflates the two together when speaking about autonomous technology for their cars, so I blame Tesla. What was required here to avoid these deaths actually has very little to do with autonomous technology as most know it, and instead talking about Collision Avoidance Systems. Only in 2024 was the first talk about requiring Collision Avoidance Systems in new vehicles in the USA. source The cars that include it now (Tesla and some other models from other brands) do so on their own without a legal mandate.
Tesla claims that the Collision Avoidance Systems would have been overridden anyway because the driver was holding on the accelerator (which is not normal under Autopilot or FSD conditions). Even if that's true, Tesla has positioned its cars as being highly autonomous, and often times doesn't call out that that skilled autonomy only comes in the Full Self Drive paid upgrade or subscription.
So I DO blame Tesla, even if the driver contributed to the accident.
First, it looks like this may be a dressed up advertisement for their newly released book:
My book on Enshittification is coming out in a couple of months, and the early reviews are already coming in, and they are gratifyingly glowing.
That fact alone doesn't discount their argument, but it should be considered.
Second, I disagree with this premise of the author:
Because this isn't an individual problem, it's a systemic one.
I disagree, its both.
As the author rightly identifies, there are somethings that are only addressable systemically such as healthcare of mass transport. However a whole other host of items the author references are absolutely individual problems. Example from the author:
When all your friends are going to a festival, are you really going to opt out because the event requires you to use the Ticketmaster app (because Ticketmaster has a monopoly over event ticketing)?
Yes, I opt-out of nearly every Ticketmaster event. It is an individual problem with an individual solution.
If so, you're not gonna have a lot of friends, which is a pretty shitty way to live.
My friends largely also opt out. Perhaps we self select for like-mindedness.
This means that they don't have to worry about losing your business or labor to a competitor, because they don't compete.
They can still lose my business if I opt out of the entire industry, such as corporate social media. No amount of competitors changes my mind on that. This could also be done on streaming services, choosing to read instead etc.
This isn't just a systemic problem as the author suggests.
mRNA vaccine technology that made the two most effective COVID vaccines saving millions of lives was pretty great.
This feels like its saying "outsource your critical thinking and agency to us, and don't worry about it"?
I think the issue is that sugary cereal is both bad for you and not that enjoyable.
See, this is what I feel about alcohol, but I don't go around judging people for enjoying it. Tastes are subjective. We each get to decide for ourselves what we like, and if we differ thats just fine!
For the same price, I can get a bahn mi with veggies, pate, and egg or pho or fried ramen.
So your breakfast is a minimum of 460 calories or so for ramen, and the prep time for the meal to be perhaps 20 minutes?
My cereal (with milk) is about 240 calories and the prep time is about 2 minutes.
I look at people who eat cereal ... wondering what’s going on in their life that they’re not willing to deal with the cognitive load of seeing what alternatives exist for breakfast.
I have about 10 minutes for breakfast in the morning and you're suggesting something that is going to be twice the calories and ten times the prep time. If that high calorie breakfast with lots of prep time is worth it to you, by all means, go ahead. You're welcome to make your own choices and they don't affect me in the slightest. I don't judge you for it, either.
Republicans from 2011:
warning: foxnews source