deliriousdreams

So there’s a problem and it’s okay to exacerbate that problem by selling a snake oil cure all?

I think we can be mad at both.

I don’t want it to do things for me. It very often eliminates my ability to vet the information I want at a glance.

I also think it’s basically being weaponized as a propaganda machine and surveillance tool and when you add that to the fact that it’s so convincingly sychophantic, that’s just outright dangerous.

It also cuts out meaningful context. A summary of what is likely already a summary isn’t helpful if you plan to actually use the information for anything. Part of how the human brain recalls information is by reading and understanding details and then parsing which details are important enough to remember for recall or use later vs which can be looked up.

Summarization by AI very often removes that context and because this is a learned skill that skill is likely to get rusty over time.

Additionally to that some people use it as a way to offload their need to think and that’s dangerous especially with the feedback loop of agreement it gives. I have seen several examples of AI sychophantically “agreeing” with whatever the user says regardless of whether it is factual or not.

And then of course there’s the fact that it’s often marketed as intelligent with the ability to tell truth, lies, and so on. That marketing isn’t true to how it actually works and what it actually does.

When you add to that the training data that stole the work of actual people, I just don’t see this as a cost the benefit ration where Generative AI can win.

Lol. We still have states that allow child brides.

Mall real estate is expensive. Plus I bet it costs more to remove the crap on the land already. Undeveloped land is usually cheaper.

Remember when they said they’d drain the swamp?

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1308591.Dot_con

Looks like it might be a term coined by this author referring to the way the internet is a for profit hellscape and the people who run it look to use code/tech to solve social problems when that’s not what it’s for or what it’s good at.

I could see it being possible that some of these AI layoffs that end in rehire just shed a lot of weight and only hire back the ones they actually need. If a company lays off 100 people and hires back 50 at a higher wage, that isn’t using AI as a pretext to hire new people at lower wages but that doesn’t mean it’s not shady still.

I mean. Maybe. But in all actuality that doesn’t happen easily on automatic cars because of the way automatic transmissions are built. Parking pawl holds the transmission while it’s parked. Then the valve body system and the torque converter work together to keep the car moving in the direction it’s geared in. So in drive you’d be geared to move forward and so on.

Yeah. I’m not disputing what’s in the article. I’m pointing out that the picture they used is wrong to the context of what is reported in the article.

Yeah. I think it might have been France that required kids to put their phones in faraday bags and leave them in a designated place (lockers or cubbies). But this article in particular didn’t specify how the ban was being applied. I am curious.

I’m surprised people think it will improve engagement or even kids paying attention to the lessons. Because as much as I understand that cell phones are absolutely a distraction in class to the point where I can understand banning them, kids who don’t want to pay attention and don’t have cell phones will find other ways to get distracted. The cell phone is just the newest medium.

If what some of these studies are saying is correct, not being allowed to have a cell phone is just as distracting if not more so.

Were you banned from bringing them to school or banned from using them in class? My school didn’t care so long as your gaming system or CD player etc was in your backpack or locker. They just didn’t want you using it in class or while transiting the hallways. When we eventually did get cell phones (mostly the Nokia bricks), a lot of us had them in school. But they were not an accepted thing to use or have cause disruptions or distractions.

So I wonder a lot about what we recall vs what actually was normal back then.

I read the article. I am looking at the picture they used for the article.

For clarity, your parking brake is often (not always especially not on newer cars - especially with the advent of electronic parking brakes) a braided cable.

Your regular car brakes (attached to your brake pedal) are a hydraulically actuated system so the brake lines that were cut were actual brake hoses filled with fluid, not a brake cable.

This is what a cut brake line looks like:

https://www.nydailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/migration/2020/10/21/YCOY32GHCFGYFNORXHEEOJZ6RA.jpg?w=1024&h=670

Wired, that’s not a brake line. At least, it’s not for the primary brake system. At best that could potentially be a parking brake cable.

People have tracked this. They have literally made whole tracking websites just for this. This is a verifiable thing. This isn’t just someone making this up based on anecdotal evidence. There are websites dedicated to this.

https://www.cheapshark.com/

https://gg.deals/news/bundles/

https://isthereanydeal.com/

The article is alleging. We don’t yet have proof of the veracity of the documentation that has been collected. When the trial finishes and the court has determined whether or not those documents and other information gathered during the course of the case have been proven to be true, then and only then do we have something that says that Valve actually did this.

I don’t trust WB and I don’t trust Ubisoft. I’m not sure I trust Valve either but I can say that my distrust for them isn’t as extreme as my distrust for the other two companies.

If Valve did this, throw the book at them. But at the same time, I want to see difinitve proof.

I don’t think that’s what people are arguing.

If I manufacture your product from a product version prototype you provided me and give you unlimited access to that product to use outside my manufacturing plant and store front, then say, you can have and sell all this free product I manufactured for you, but you have to price it the same in my store as you do where you sell it elsewhere, that’s makes sense.

What doesn’t make sense and what isn’t right, is if they say "you can’t price your product that someone else is manufacturing for you at a price lower than the one your price my manufactured product of yours at.

But people keep thinking that those two groups are saying the same thing, that Valve should be allowed to do it regardless of who manufactured what when that’s not what they are saying.

If Valve is doing this, they obvious should have the book thrown at them. But we haven’t seen evidence of that that isn’t tantamount to hearsay. So we are doing what you should do when you hear something and can’t determine the veracity of what is being said. You wait for proof and don’t make up your mind based on rumors.

Gotta wonder if his asshole is jealous of the shit that comes out of his mouth.

Eight whole years or more of allegations and not one singular leak? Nobody kept a record of their contract? Not one dev? Nobody heard the news about Wolfie and went “hey wait a minute” and went back and read their contracts?

I am taking these allegations with a grain of salt because the internet sometimes is very loud and very wrong and without a credible source of information (news outlets would love even a hint of proof of this), it’s a lawsuit that hasn’t been determined to be factually proven yet, and some rumors.

My problem isn’t that you’ve said Valve allegedly did this. My problem is that you posited your statement as if it was a proven fact and linked to “evidence” that a court of law might even consider hearsay.

I’m not trying to break your balls here. I’m just saying I clicked that link thinking there was something of substance in it.

If you make a claim on the internet it should be backed up by facts. I don’t care if Gaben is guilty or innocent. I am pointing out that we don’t have a credible source for the allegations up to this point (even a copy of a contract with the specific wording would suffice and likely would have been leaked at some point in the last 8 years).