Care to explain? Sounds interesting, my last impression was that SK was a society with massive competitive pressure in education and career. What happened?

My bet is on exactly that being the plan. Stocks go down, tech companies pay to bribe him, next Tuesday a reversal of tariff plans, stocks go up, rich people make more money. Rinse, repeat

Well, like you said that’s basically the corporations fault. They push “AI” everywhere and AI in the media is 100% LLMs and other GenAI. I wouldn’t blame the public for not knowing the difference. Those data centers aren’t built to cure cancer, but to cause it. Figuratively and literally.

LLMs don’t cure cancer. That’s the kind of AI everyone refers to these days. Not ML projects.

Would be an OK salary for most of Europe. Most countries here have relatively solid health care insurance, affordable education and a pension fund included, so that some of the biggest costs of living in the US don’t even make a dent in the salary.

Quite ironic considering how hard Microslop is pushing AI. Now the self inflicted ram shortage kills their bloated bullshit features.

Possible, but they would more likely see more false positives depending on how suspicious they are… like when people suspected images to be photoshopped in the past.

I have no clue about the looksmaxxing scene, so forgive me for asking: Which one is supposed to be before and which one is after?

Edit: Goddamit, it’s a simple question and I honestly don’t see it. Just answer me instead of downvoting if you know better than me. The left one looks more masculine somehow and my first instinct was that this has to be the “after” photo, but usually these comparisons go from left to right. I’m not going to google the person because I have a feeling this isn’t worth my attention.

You wrote “AI has access to a wealth of our personal information from past conversations” - From a technical standpoint, AI has a “context” per session and it can have “memories” which can be added if the system you are using provides such a thing. However: Unless you are reusing the same session over several days, in general AI can’t remember your past conversations. And it’s not advisable to use the same session for an extended period of time: The context becomes diluted and the model is more prone to hallucinate, forget key points or start to misbehave in subtle ways.

On the content of your post… I’d wish you would be clearer and more precise in getting your point across. It was a hard read for me tbh. Also I think that “bypassing the brainstorming process” with AI is simply impossible, because a large language model does not have ideas. It’s output is the statistical mean of its training data, which in essence means that its output is by design mediocre. It’s the statistical middle ground of the options the training data contains. Human ideas on the other hand, as you rightfully point out are the result of a spark of personality and individual experiences. This will never be replaced by AI. Using it as a tool for brainstorming can be detrimental to the result for the same reasons. The AI might convince you that your idea is good while it is in fact just mediocre or worse.

I think you might unknowingly still be a victim of the mystification of LLMs. It’s time to see the technology at face value and to get to know its very real limitations of practical usability. The part about transhumanism… idk. Only people who see these things as more than just sophisticated word generators would entertain such an idea.

Indeed. The average person seems to need instagram, whatsapp and xitter to fill their meaningless little isolated lives with distractions to feel… something. However on a more positive note, once people get suspicious about AI slop they tend to notice the slop patterns more easily, which is a good development. It’s something that can’t be unseen.

Oh wow, not the onion.

Low effort guy in the middle should step up his game

AI fits very well into the “Workism” narrative. As LLMs generate the statistical medium of all the training data it has, the output is mediocre by design. That makes it an excellent tool for bullshit work, like creating an email summary of a meeting that no one will ever read, and countless other mindless and useless daily chores of the “knowledge worker”.

But the basic premise hasn’t moved an inch with AI. If you have a job which rewards creativity and needs you to develop new ideas, solve hard problems etc. then AI doesn’t do shit for you. AI gives mediocre answers to mediocre people. It’s not creative at all. It spits out the average of the sum of its training data points. If your job consists mostly of doing mindless chores then it is not a good job anyway. Nothing to be proud of, not a career, just a job.

What a weird article. They’re really trying hard to spin this.

provincial government officials used ChatGPT to generate polarizing content and comments about the dire costs of data centers

China has their own models now which are better at generating chinese propaganda than US models. This is just silly.

The Chinese state is also influencing the training data for popular American AI models

If OpenAI and Anthropic choose to crawl places where such influencial texts are found and then go on to include that into their training data it’s their fault.

The researchers asked ChatGPT and DeepSeek, China’s top chatbot, the same political queries and found that DeepSeek’s answers were more favorable to China than ChatGPT’s 99 percent of the time

I’m shocked, SHOCKED. well, not that shocked. You could rephrase that with political queries about the US and the answers would be biased towards the US as well.

Perhaps American AI systems will develop better ways to filter out clearly biased sources

LOL. The American billionaire class has no interest in filtering out bias, only opinions opposing their own. They’ve been openly embracing fascism for a while now.

A technology that was meant to democratize information

LOL. AI was never meant to democratize anything. They we’re stealing the world’s knowledge and now they are trying to sell it back to us, while making it harder to access to the original sources (this is the reason why you can’t find anything in google search results any more - they want to sell you Gemini)

What a load of bullshit. I’m tired, boss.

NINJA EDIT: I’m not saying China good, US bad. Neither can be trusted.

Former FIFA President Josep Blatter also wrote on X that the “close relationship” between Infantino and the US President Donald Trump “has reached a financial dimension that is deeply damaging football.”

look, Infantino even managed to beat Blatter at the corruption game. Impressive.

I absolutely agree that the technology in itself isn’t useless. It’s the humans and their abuse of LLMs/GenAI for everything conceivable that makes me angry. Most of the advertised use cases are just not holding up. The idea that “AI” can do everything better than humans is just wrong. It mimicks human output at best, and this also means that when trained on human garbage code it won’t generate better code than humans, statistically. It’s a probability machine, not an intelligent entity. If you keep that in mind, and if you are able to ignore all the ethical, environmental and intellectual property theft issues, then it can be a useful tool.

I’m not being sarcastic here: I’m also using LLMs for small, narrowly defined delevopment tasks, albeit with models running on local hardware mostly. But I’m constantly torn between being impressed when it actually works and being downright disgusted by the non-deterministic nature of the thing when it doesn’t.

The problem for me was the decision process and the piss poor way it was communicated, plain and simple. I’m absolutely fine with the decision in itself, it’s their platform and they can do that if they feel like it.

But instead of voting on an single agenda point about a small TOS change in a closed members meeting and dealing with the consequences later, I would have appreciated open communication and discussion on that topic not only among the members but also the user base before making such blanket decisions. As far as I heard there wasn’t even a real discussion among the members, it was just a vote on a TOS change, which was introduced and advertised by a member shortly before the meeting took place. I could be wrong on the last point, but these kinds of salami tactics or “Vereinsmeierei” in an association would make Codeberg an unreliable platform for hosting a project.

Like someone else in here has said, this time it was banning Crypto and LLMs, next time it could be Ruby on Rails (because of their ties to the racist entrepreneur DHH) or whatever TOS change makes it through their members-only voting process. Again, that’s fine for Codeberg but it’s not a good place for any non-member to host a project.

There is another problem which keeps stocks like Tesla afloat when it really should have tanked a long time ago: Index funds based on indexes like S&P 500 etc., where investors are automatically buying Tesla stock when buying into the fund, which stabilizes the stock in question. Musk knows this and that was the exact reason why he tried to get indexes to bend the rules of inclusion for spaceX to be included in indexes earlier than usual. The grave consequences are people investing in index funds are directly milked. Pension funds often include indexes, so what Musk is doing there is in effect trying to steal from people who did not actively invest in SpaceX.

Using generated lines of code as a metric is always a good idea

/S

Beautiful headline, but it’s all going downhill from there. The article is full of AI hype fueled assumptions and misses the point completely. It’s another just another article in the spirit of “You’re just prompting it wrong, bro”

There’s no denying that these new tools have already revolutionized how we create and use software. […] They may have upgraded the average skill set of software teams in a way we have not seen before.

Yeah sure, dream on. If anything, it has encouraged developers to not use their brain. Great skillset you got there.