Does every single human need to be put into neat little categories without any grey room at all? It’s always good vs evil! Yeah! Exactly how life works! No complexity! 🙃

I’m a Bernie supporter. Pretty liberal. I wish no one died, the shooter included. I hate Trump, but stop cheering. Why are we celebrating the end of our species? We’re all human. It’s someone’s son, or brother, or family, or friend.

#ScreamingIntoTheVoid

Which came first? The AI image could be a bad render of the original picture with low quality.

There’s issues with models pushing back source material with minor modifications, which suggest they were trained on some copyrighted material. It seems like it could be the case here. Or, as you suggest, it’s a lowering of the AI quality to add a more realistic appearance.

12ft.io/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/25/business/ai-image-generators-openai-microsoft-midjourney-copyright.html

There’s some diagnostic info when in game through the battery sidebar menu, I think. You can use that to see frame rate and other performance benchmarks.

I usually just google or YouTube some way to improve whatever game I’m playing on deck. Usually, someone has already done the leg work to figure it out.

Many things are designed for engagement, so what’s your point? Some people use Lemmy like Reddit and care about internet points that don’t matter. “The rising number is designed to exploit your behavioral patterns and enforce your engagement.” Instead of daily, it’s multiple times, but the point is you can paint many business models like this.

People download the app to get better at a skill. It’s designed to be effective at doing that. It’s a skill people want to learn. How is that exploitive or manipulative?

Full warning: I’ve worked in game design and F2P for like 10 years. I know there’s some personal bias, but there are much worse examples of this stuff than Duolingo or whatever. Painting good actors as bad actors is not correct.

The anecdote part at the end is irrelevant for both of us. I have the opposite experience and don’t even use this app: a bunch of my friends seem to all use it for learning languages. /shrug

Why evil? I’m not a capitalist, but it’s a language learning company being silly; they aren’t causing massive injustice.

It’s run well for me. A little hiccup with text entering, but that’s standard.

More AI:

Do you hear the denim sing? Singing a song of jean-clad men? It is the fabric of the people Who won’t wear slacks again!

When the stitching in your seams Echoes the rhythm of the looms There is a style about to gleam When tomorrow’s hemline blooms!

Maybe more apt for me would be, “We don’t need to teach math, because we have calculators.” Like…yeah, maybe a lot of people won’t need the vast amount of domain knowledge that exists in programming, but all this stuff originates from human knowledge. If it breaks, what do you do then?

I think someone else in the thread said good programming is about the architecture (maintainable, scalable, robust, secure). Many LLMs are legit black boxes, and it takes humans to understand what’s coming out, why, is it valid.

Even if we have a fancy calculator doing things, there still needs to be people who do math and can check. I’ve worked more with analytics than LLMs, and more times than I can count, the data was bad. You have to validate before everything else, otherwise garbage in, garbage out.

It’s sounds like a poignant quote, but it also feels superficial. Like, something a smart person would say to a crowd to make them say, “Ahh!” but also doesn’t hold water long.

I generally agree. It’ll be interesting what happens with models, the datasets behind them (particularly copyright claims), and more localized AI models. There have been tasks where AI greatly helped and sped me up, particularly around quick python scripts to solve a rote problem, along with early / rough documentation.

However, using this output as justification to shed head count is questionable for me because of the further business impacts (succession planning, tribal knowledge, human discussion around creative efforts).

If someone is laying people off specifically to gap fill with AI, they are missing the forest for the trees. Morale impacts whether people want to work somewhere, and I’ve been fortunate enough to enjoy the company of 95% of the people I’ve worked alongside. If our company shed major head count in favor of AI, I would probably have one foot in and one foot out.

This has been my general worry: the tech is not good enough, but it looks convincing to people with no time. People don’t understand you need at least an expert to process the output, and likely a pretty smart person for the inputs. It’s “trust but verify”, like working with a really smart parrot.

There was a similar study reported the other day about using FMRI imagining and AI to recreate the “thought content” of someone’s brain. It required training for the AI in the person’s brain and some other training. It does seem these techniques can work with some specified models, but yeah, it doesn’t seem like hooking someone’s brain up to this would create a movie of their mind or something.

I think the more dangerous part is “This is step 0,” which this tech would have seemed impossible 10 years ago. Very strange times.

https://youtu.be/FSvNhxKJJyU?si=xzq7QvVaIcxPE-AD#t=55s

Meta ethics focuses on the underlying framework behind morality. Whenever you’re asking, “But why is it moral?” That’s meta ethics.

Meta ethics splits between cognitivism (moral statements can be true or false) and non-cognitivism (moral statements are not true or false). One popular cognitive branch is natural moral realism, the idea there are objective moral facts. One popular non-cognitivism branch is emotivism, the idea that moral statements all all complicated “yays” or “yucks” and express emotions rather than true/false statements.

Cognitivism also has anti-realism, which is there are moral facts, but they are truth/false conditional based on each person or group. My issue is you lose the ability to call out certain behavior as wrong; slavery is wrong; not respecting others is wrong. If you want to believe all morality systems are valid, meaning your morality is no better than some radical thought group’s, then go ahead. On an emotional level, speciesism level, rights level, deontological level, utilitarian level, and many more slavery is wrong. Again, some nut job doesn’t invalidate all other thoughts. That’s my take.

Half of the comments in here are a bunch of equivocations on the words.

“Objective” morality would mean there are good things to do, and bad things to do. What people actually do in some hypothetical or real society is different and wouldn’t undermine the objective status of morality.

Listen to this example:

• Todd wants to go to the bank before it closes.
• Todd is not at the bank.
• Todd should travel to the bank before it closes.

This is a functional should statement. Maybe Todd does go, or maybe he doesn’t. But if he wants to fulfill his desires, he should travel if he wants to go to the bank. The point is that should statements, often used in morality, can inform us for less controversial topics.

Here’s another take: why should we be rational? We could base our epistemology on breeding, money, or other random ends. If you think I should be rational, you’re leveraging morality to do that.

Most people believe in objective morality, whether they understand it that way or not. Humans have disagreed over many subjects throughout history. Disagreement alone doesn’t undermine objectivity. It’s objectively true that the Earth revolves around the sun. Some nut case with a geocentric mindset isn’t going to convince me otherwise. You can argue it’s objective because we can test it, but how do I test my epistemology?

This is just a philosophy 101 run around. I’m a moral pluralist who believes in utilizing many moral theories to help understand the moral landscape. If we were to study the human body, you’d use biology, physics, chemistry, and so on. When looking at a moral problem, I look at it from the main moral theories and look for consensus around a moral stance.

I’m not interested in debating, but there’s so many posts making basic mistakes about morality. My undergraduate degree was in ethics, and I’ve published on meta ethics. We ain’t solving this in a lemmy thread, but there’s a lot of literature to read for those interested.

Ah yes. Paying for privacy on a walled garden website. Genius business moves.

Alright then. Keep your secrets.

Wefwef is amazing, especially if you like Apollo. No issues so far.