FriendOfDeSoto

I am afraid you are “fucked” if you think AJ is an example of independent media and that YT numbers are enough proof for media suppression. Most people on this planet do not watch YT. And the ones who do tend to be influenced by their algorithms that continuously change. That makes YT numbers as slippery as an eel in a lubricant factory. By which I mean unreliable to start a conspiracy theory about a poor, cash strapped, impeccably impartial artisan media outlet from Qatar. Slash s.

For years, when Meta launched new features for Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook, teams of reviewers evaluated possible risks: Could it violate users’ privacy? Could it cause harm to minors? Could it worsen the spread of misleading or toxic content?

Until recently, what are known inside Meta as privacy and integrity reviews were conducted almost entirely by human evaluators.

Really? Humans? Maybe even qualified humans? Huh! Never would’ve thought that.

Set your timers. We’re going to hear about a non-ethical decision made by this system in 5, 4, 3, …

Because we don’t want an American system where 16 blorbs equal 1 waboom. We want as much centi and milli as possible! Resistance is futile.

Why isn’t this a popular thing? Because the majority of people on this planet does not care about time zones and either doesn’t have to deal with them at all or doesn’t see a problem when they do. It’s tradition, it’s convention, it’s well-established, and it just works for most people. We should abolish DST but otherwise this ship has sailed.

We should use the aftermath of a civilization killing meteor hit or thermonuclear war to decimalize time keeping - it would need a catastrophic, cataclysmic event like that. A day is now 100 jiffies long. Each jiffy has 100 centijiffies. Now, if we could alter the time it takes the Earth to orbit the sun to something more even that’d be great.

It’s not just Americans. There are many countries in Asia where the default is year month day. If you ever had to organize files by name and date this is the supreme sorting order. Both Europe and North America are getting it wrong.

If this gets you mad don’t ever look into how the French count from 80 to 99. Or how languages disagree on what’s blue or green. These things happen.

This is the “how much is a pint of milk?” politicians gotcha question of the so-called-AI age.

I don’t like Facebook, I don’t like this “legend,” I don’t like so-called AI being forcefed down our throats. I’ve yet to see a reliably good use case that makes me forget how many polar bears get cooked while we are playing around with this quarter-baked tech. And I don’t think it’s right to just syphon off the training data either.

That being said, I want to defend old Nick a tiny bit. Why doesn’t he think it’s feasible to go to every copyright holder and ask for permission? Because the stuff is readily available online. Either because people put it there voluntarily. Or because people torrented it, file-shared it, stole it. I’m not excusing one crime with another committed by somebody else. This is just about the motivation: why don’t they go around to every artist and ask? Because they don’t have to. And they have deep enough pockets to pay later if they have to. If you were sitting in Facebook’s c suite (you know what the c stands for), and you were entangled in a race to the bottom with the Googles and OpenAIs of this world, this makes business sense unfortunately. And if you have ever enjoyed pirated content online, you are (as I am) culpable in a homeopathic dose. If we didn’t occasionally break the law, Meta would have to go ask more artists because there would be no other way. That’s the status quo we find ourselves in. The moral gray zone.

I suggested in another thread a new law, based off of Murphy’s. Anything that can be training data, will become training data. Whether it’s a big company or a rich privateer with large server capacity - somebody is going to take it. It’s not right and just and legal and at the same time an inevitability. That’s why all these measures to get these companies to ask artists is akin to trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. We need to milk these companies for money, percentages of revenue and raised funds, and find a way to distribute this among the artists. Fines, taxes, voluntary contributions - all the tools need to be thrown at companies that train or apply the various models. The longer we spend pearl clutching at the audacity of these big corporations, the more money they get to keep.

Technically, smoking weed in the Netherlands is illegal. The law just isn’t enforced. Stealing bicycles is illegal everywhere but they get stolen all the time. Abortion may be illegal but tolerated until a certain time where you live. We have many scenarios where we’re stuck in the moral gray zone. Where illegal things just happen and life goes on. I am afraid that so-called AI has provided us with another one.

I don’t like it, I don’t like it at all. I just don’t see any other way to move forward. Weavers hated the industrialization, horse breeders the introduction of the automobile, the music industry Napster et al., and everyone will hate so-called AI.

There are legendary villains too. But truthfully, he doesn’t even fit that bill either despite having worked for Facebook. Maybe he’s just the legendary wart on the arse of history.

Normally, when somebody on the internet starts a question with “Am I the only one …?” my first reaction is to say no, of course not. This is the first time that I really need to question that conviction. I think you just might be the only one!

The founders and other info can be found here.

And wouldn’t you know it? Both men, and both on Xwitter and LinkedIn.

I can agree with a lot here but I also have to admit that I fell at the first hurdle.

I think that depends how convincing and what words the AI uses

Hard disagree here. If you’re using so-called AI today, the responsibility to scrutinize everything it throws at you is yours. No matter how neatly packaged or convincingly worded it is. There is a failure rate - the news is full of stories. You’re setting off to climb a mountain. You cannot trust the 1s and 0s.

As for the sat nav culpability, Google gives elevation information when they have it. I would not be surprised when we found out that was the case for these dumdums. It’s a bit like reading an old paper map though. If you don’t know more saturated colors mean higher elevation you might have set off 30 years ago to climb this 12k ft mountain in flip-flops as well. I don’t think we should blame sat navs for the ignorance here either. Unless they hide that info maliciously.

To a certain degree, copyright holder decries possible limitations on copyright as foul, that’s not really news, is it?

Elton John garnered success in a time when you could earn a pretty penny by selling records. As a result, he has a lot of well paying dogs in this fight. It’s nice that he wants to protect the younglings. I just wonder if he knows that that ship has already sailed for them. Most contemporary artists don’t earn shit on streams, selling records is not sustainable income, and you can only make money on concerts really. Branding is almost more important than content. What is he looking to protect then for the younger artists? An industry in decline anyway?

I think we may have to come to terms with the possibility that everything that can be made available as training data will be used as training data. A shit Murphy’s Law if you will. Facebook torrenting their training data is just the first sign of it. In the end, it will be indistinguishable and unremovable. This sort of thinking may be going alongside the incessant lobbying of tech bros at Westminster.

What we need is to extract money from the companies who do this and spread it among artists. A percentage of their revenues from two years sgo and all fundrausing goes into a fund. Musicians, artists, film makers, writers etc. join the fund and get a cut. Money is the only thing that would make these companies think twice. Right now the price for running roughshod over everything including the law is relatively cheap for them. We have to raise the price. That would be more productive than calling politicians idiots in my opinion.

AI isn’t putting people’s lives in danger here. It’s the people’s ignorance that puts their lives in danger. This is the same as when car navigation apps became available and people turned and sank their cars into creeks and harbors because they trusted their navi provider’s faulty map data more than their own eyes and common sense. The problem is “cluesless people.” If you are just trusting all the info chatGPT finds for you, you are the problem. We can’t just outsource the attribution of blame for all idiotic actions to so-called AI.

I think the sound you’re hearing is a bunch of people creating throwaway accounts for this one. Not me though. I’m a saint.

Perp walks. Teachers in school in front of class. Other kids in school being mean. Public dress downs at work. I’m sure there are more. Not all perps walked reoffend. Kids get their shit together because they don’t want to be made to look silly in front of their peers. I think for some employees this works similarily.

Shaming only works if the shamed feels any. The doublers-down are often the ones who don’t feel shame. So it was the wrong tool for the job. Won’t work on 47 if you know what I mean.

Just to clarify: I would personally put this tool in the “break glass in case of last resort” section of the tool box. But I’ve worked with bosses who didn’t put these restrictions on themselves and it can work.

You could question their leadership qualities if you wanted to. That’s a benefit of arm chairing this stuff in an internet forum.

Just by origin of the word polyglot means you have many tongues. Tongues is of course well established as a stand-in for languages. If you can speak more than one, you fall under the definition.

I think people have attached more to the term than just that though. I’m thinking of well traveled and culturally sensitive as well. Somebody who would be alright no matter where you dropped them.

How many languages can your better half say good morning in? She might just be trying to pay you a compliment and you with your humilis gloriatio are not having it. In any case, I wouldn’t recommend going back to her with arguments obtained from a random group of internet users to settle your interpersonal disagreement.

I was shooting for “neutral you”.

I think you missed.

I assumed that you were also a fan.

You know what you do when you assume, don’t you?

Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.

If that’s what you think I’m surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you’re moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.

So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?” The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.

If this was pointed at my personally then you in particular and one in general should keep in mind that the person answering a binary question of the calibre “Which is worse, the plague or cholera?” doesn’t necessarily need to be suffering from either disease to make an assessment. So looping back to your OG query: I would say it’s better not to shout at anyone in general. But I’m also sure you and I after careful deliberation could agree on some exceptions relating to your query that aren’t monkey business. E.g. the idiot could be in danger, the idiot could be a racist abusing the marginalized, the idiot could be hard of hearing, etc. This sort of longer discussion isn’t encouraged by a binary prompt.

If we have defined “idiotic” to a sufficiently objective degree, I think the idiot wins the race. The shouter - although not in the best manner - is at least trying to make the idiot aware of their transgression. It’s a reaction to the idiotic behavior, not out of the blue. And while it will not work in correcting the idiot’s behavior all the time, there is at least the chance that the reaction is memorable to the idiot - public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection, and thus prevent a recurrence. It’s these small odds that tilt this seesaw of a question for me.

I get that. It’s just the constellation of stuff here. Polish youths in considerate numbers falling in love with Russian culture is a bit like saying 9/11 firefighters are turning to Islam for guidance. Not that both scenarios would be inherently bad, they’re just not very likely. That’s why I asked for more than hearsay.