Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.

Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.

  • 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 3rd, 2024

help-circle
  • Indeed. And any modern AI training system is going to be extensively curating any training data that ends up being fed into the AI, probably processing it through other AIs to generate synthetic data from it. The days of early ChatGPT where LLMs were trained by just dumping giant piles of random text on them and hoping it’ll figure it out somehow are long past.

    This reminds me of Nightshade, the supposed anti-art-AI technique that could be defeated by resizing the image (which all art AI training systems do as a matter of course). It may make people “feel better” but it’s not going to have any real impact on anything.



  • This clickbait headline has been making the rounds for a few days now. Replit’s CEO is not saying that AI has “replaced” professional coders, he’s talking about their company’s target market.

    It’s like a website provider making tools to simplify website creation for small businesses so that any mom-and-pop store can have a basic website, and saying “we’re not aiming these tools at professional website authors.” They’re simply not trying to occupy that niche.

    Get ready for a bunch of unskilled people making the shittiest apps imaginable.

    Those apps have their place. Why shouldn’t an “unskilled” person be able to make some little tool that does some specific task they need done? I’m a professional coder and I make “shitty little apps” all the time for throwaway tasks. I think it’ll be empowering for the average user to be able to do that sort of thing too.

    Obviously, don’t go buying such apps and installing them on your own phone or whatever. That’s where professionals still have their place.


  • You’re missing the lesson too, ironically.

    The voters didn’t like what the Democrats were offering them, they wanted change, and they wanted it badly enough that they went ahead and ate that dog-turd-and-glass-sandwich.

    You’re saying “they shouldn’t have eaten that, the sandwich the Democrats were offering was better.” Okay, well, they did it anyway. So you’re wrong. The Democrats were wrong. They’ve been wrong multiple times now. They’re doing the “Am I so out of touch? No. It’s the voters who are wrong.” Meme.

    America’s a democracy. The voters aren’t wrong, as much as you might personally disagree with their choice. If you want a different government you have to offer them one that they’ll vote for. That may require some compromises, but that’s part of democracy.

    I hope that they get it this time. This is the second time in recent memory that they’ve made this mistake. Even Biden’s election was closer than it should have been. I really hope that the DNC gets its head out of its ass and cleans house, but articles like this are disheartening.



  • Over an hour into the video. Not going to be seen by anyone who doesn’t already buy in to the headline.

    Ironically, I just asked an AI to tell me what the video’s justification for the title was.

    The speaker clarifies that they are using the terms “parasite” and “cancer” in a precise way to describe generative AI. ● Generative AI is parasitic because it relies on human communication and creativity for training data but simultaneously erodes and destroys those very things. The speaker compares it to a parasite that drains resources from its host without offering any benefits in return. ● Generative AI is cancerous because it spreads rapidly, replacing authentic human content with AI-generated content, and dealing with it will likely be difficult and have unintended consequences. The speaker acknowledges that addressing this problem, much like chemotherapy for cancer, might inadvertently harm “healthy cells” as well.

    The speaker chose this title to emphasize their serious concerns about the negative impact of generative AI on human creativity, communication, and the internet. They believe generative AI is harmful because it deceives users by presenting AI-generated content as human-created. The speaker clarifies their word choice to preempt potential criticism and ensure their message is understood.