Hey there!
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 446
- Joined
- 9 mo. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 446
- Joined
- 9 mo. ago
I mean, makes sense to me.
We already reveal a lot of small details in comments. I mentally note every time I've done it and I know for sure someone could probably get pretty close to finding at least the general area I live in by just my post history here, let alone any other social media accounts.
Even with all their other flaws, LLMs are fairly good data parsers. Specifically when it comes to taking unstructured data (e.g. "In SF we've got...") and turning it into structured data (e.g.
city_of_residence: San Francisco), so it's not surprising you could use this to just build a dossier of someone's info and cross-match it with other databases.Nothing humans couldn't do before, and nothing intelligence agencies and data brokers don't already have technology to do, but LLMs will make this a lot more accessible to anyone since it requires less specialization, custom text filters, stuff like that.
The doctors who used it daily said it worked fine, and it did. Then those doctors became 20% less capable at identifying tumors in their patients.
The Meta AI security researcher literally said, and I quote: "It’s been working well with my non-important email very well so far and gained my trust on email tasks" when asked why she'd give it access to her primary email, where it subsequently started trashing her whole inbox.
All of the participants in the cognitive debt paper's research had the AI actually produce the results they were looking for, but they all became less capable mentally as a result.
And when a woman in South Korea killed two men using advice given to her by ChatGPT, it worked fine for her, didn't it?
That's not to say your use of AI makes you a murderer. Far from it. But we have quite well documented evidence of LLMs simply making people dumber. You are not an exception to that, unless your brain biologically operates entirely differently from everyone else's.
When you use neurons less, the connections become weaker, and less new connections get made. When you offload work to something else, like an LLM, you stop training your brain to get better, and you let parts of it slowly die.
Using AI is like using a hydraulic robot to bench press for you. You're going to move the weights, but your muscle mass ain't growing.
The more you outsource the very function of thinking to a chatbot, the more reliant your brain will become on that chatbot to think as well as it used to, and when that chatbot regularly hallucinates faulty answers and logic, ignores best practices, inefficiently implements solutions, and gets things wrong, your brain is not improving as a result of that.
This doesn't mean you should never use AI. I use it to automatically clean up the transcriptions of my voice notes sometimes, and all that does is save me time from correcting the output of the text I just spoke. It's genuinely helpful, and doesn't meaningfully deskill me in any way. But if I used it to try and do everything for me, not only would it have made a ton of mistakes, but I'd then be even less capable of fixing them.
"doesn't work" doesn't mean the AI literally does not produce any output or do anything, it means it has so many flaws it's just a fundamentally bad technology to be using.
And don't worry, I've got sources.
LLMs still routinely hallucinate, and even implementations being used by AI safety researchers can't help but automatically wipe email inboxes without permission. They atrophy your brain the longer you use them, cause both general dependency and emotional dependency, as well as deskill you at your job, they produce content favored worse by both humans and the AI models searching for trustworthy sources, and to top it all off, scaling laws are already failing to improve AI models enough to fix these problems, companies aren't seeing returns, the economy gained essentially nothing from AI investment, usage, and growth, and public perception by the people actually affected most by AI is only getting worse while the people financially incentivized to keep building it say it's going to get better, all while datacenters accelerate global warming and LLMs keep killing people.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not support a technology that makes you get fundamentally worse at most cognitive tasks, damages the planet, burns money that could otherwise go to something more valuable, all while randomly killing mentally vulnerable people.
I guess I see them as more of an authority on the matter since they’re actually nonbinary?
And that's the beautiful part: nobody can tell you who you are but yourself. If you assign the label of nonbinary to yourself, then you are. What other people say doesn't change that, and you're not harming anyone by being you :)
Hey. As someone who spent a very long portion of their life supporting trans and nonbinary people, thinking I wasn't one of them, later realizing I probably was, then eventually coming out, I can relate to this a lot.
I think that feeling can often stem from feeling like other people are judging you based on how you identify, will feel insulted/brought down if you try to identify with a category they also identify as, or because you feel like you're not "really" trans/nonbinary/etc enough to qualify.
That last one is big, because just like you:
at times I feel very comfortable being male, but at others I feel a lot more feminine)
I experience the exact same thing every day. Maybe it's just how it is to be nonbinary, maybe I'm genderfluid, but at the end of the day, I still feel more comfortable not being solely defined as a man, so any alternative is better than that, and that is what matters.
Other trans people are not judging you for how you identify. They themselves have almost certainly been oppressed, criticized, and questioned for their own identity. They know how it feels, and they don't want to push that onto someone else. Would you, with the experience you now have, go to someone else who confided in you that they think they're nonbinary and go "you don't seem nonbinary"?
I assume not, because you've learned from personal experience that it isn't necessarily a helpful statement, so you're not gonna perpetuate that. Sure, you could always say something benign that ends up causing someone to spiral like you did, but it's not gonna be on purpose, and there's not going to be an underlying "I hate this person for being trans" thought behind it, because that's not what you meant.
You support trans and queer rights more broadly, the only crime you've committed is the innate human desire and experience of self-discovery and self-expression, and any questioning you have over your gender is something countless other people experience every single day, and that doesn't make them any less trans/nonbinary in your eyes, now does it?
You are probably afraid of coming off as transphobic because you don't want to perpetuate the same feelings you have experienced, and are overcompensating mentally by just worrying about it too much. I do the same thing, and at a certain point, you just have to recognize that nobody is hearing your thoughts, nobody understands your mental state better than you, and you are who you say you are. That is something nobody is going to take from you, and that is not something you're gonna take from anyone else just by existing.
Live your life :) 💛🤍💜🖤
I think Cory Doctorow does a good job of explaining this when he talks about Naomi Klein's book. They both call it a "mirror world" of political beliefs.
Qanon's obsession with "child trafficking" is a mirror-world version of the real crises of child poverty, child labor, border family separations and kids in cages. Anti-vax is the mirror-world version of the true story of the Sacklers and their fellow opioid barons making billions on Oxy and fent, with the collusion of corrupt FDA officials and a pliant bankruptcy court system. Xenophobic panic about "immigrants stealing jobs" is the mirror world version of the well-documented fact that big business shipped jobs to low-waged territories abroad, weakening US labor and smashing US unions. Cryptocurrency talk about "decentralization" is the mirror-world version of the decay of every industry (including tech) into a monopoly or a cartel.
It's easy to be convinced by that type of logic. I used to be heavily into cryptocurrency because I saw the failure of capitalism to protect us from corporate consolidation and monopolies, so I assumed "this system that decries centralized authorities must be better."
They were only half right though. It's true corporate consolidation was a problem, and the centralization it brought causes issues, but the reason that consolidation happens is because of capital, which crypto is very much not against, and heavily supports, through tokens that give you ownership over a share of all the income a protocol generates, even if that protocol could run just fine indefinitely on-chain without paying you a fee.
People slowly accumulate more wealth, more voting power, and eventually control how these "decentralized" protocols operate.
In the same way, MAGA thinking has the same problem, where they'll correctly identify an issue or motive, but entirely misjudge what the cause of it is, will fight the wrong enemies (or worse, support their true enemies), and only later will they realize things have just kept getting worse.
- JumpRemoved
American Psychological Association Reaffirms Support For Trans Youth Care, Pushes Back Against NYT
According to this paper, out of all the gender-affirming procedures done in 2019: (to clarify, this means only the ones done in 2019, not overall % rates of like, total procedures by population over time. This is ONLY data from surgeries done solely in 2019.)
- 0.0053% of adults got one
- 0.0021% of 15-17 year olds got one
- 0.0001% of 13-14 year olds got one
- 0% of 12 or under children got one.
80% of adult breast reduction procedures were done for cisgender males, and 97% of minor breast reductions were done on cisgender males.
Here's their graphs. (TGD means transgender or gender diverse diagnosis)
And of course, the study even specifically addresses the fact that so many people are concerned about gender affirming care by minors, while the data shows that's clearly unwarranted, stating:
these findings suggest that concerns around high rates of gender-affirming surgery use, specifically among TGD minors, may be unwarranted. Low use by TGD people likely reflects adherence to stringent standards of gender-affirming care
I'm honestly surprised they never got hit for this. It's one thing for our antitrust system to be shit, but to look at a policy that explicitly states "you have to give us the best possible price otherwise we will kick you off our platform and take away the majority of your possible customers" isn't even burying the lead at all.
or I guess in this case, shit.
Same here.
Go to Android Developer Settings > Display Cutout, set it to one of the other options and it should shift the app down a bit so you can access the buttons. (change it back after ofc)
I used "waterfall cutout" but others might work depending on your phone model. Afaik no other fix is possible without the app's code itself being modified.
They think AI companies are using it as a "backdoor" to scrape their content. Which is patently ridiculous, but that won't stop them.
LVT is the best tax.
LVT is a pretty good tax, but you don't use it in isolation. It exists to make property taxes more progressive, not to make taxation as a whole more progressive.
To do that, you need to replace regressive taxes like the sales tax with progressive taxes like wealth and income taxes, and have rising tax brackets (or sloped steadily increasing taxes) that effectively account for less and less of people's acquired wealth being necessary or good for society as the amount grows larger.
There should be a minimum tax on unrealized capital gains.
Totally agree, though I think to a degree there should be some limits, (e.g. under $1m in assets, adjusted for inflation, it doesn't apply) so regular people don't have to worry about things like managing how much assets they'll have to liquidate to pay their taxes each year, which would make planning for retirement very difficult.
Most of the stock market is owned by the ultra wealthy anyways, so the tax would still account for most capital gains while making everyone else's lives much easier.
It would be better than a blanket tax for sure, but still produces bad incentives.
That kind of system still encourages wealth hoarding, because it costs more to spend money than it does to save/invest it. We already know billionaires aren't just hoarding wealth to spend it all, because most of them only spend a fraction of it. They hoard it because there is a psychological mechanism that makes them feel like they just need a bigger number no matter what.
There's a limit to how much one person can spend on things they'll actually want, but there's no limit on just how high the number can go if they keep funneling more and more money into their bank and brokerage accounts, which means you effectively cap out the tax rate on billionaires.
In a system like that, if a regular person has $1,000 per month in money to spend, and spends $500 on goods that are still taxed, that's 50% of their income getting taxed. A billionaire might have a billion dollars, and only spend a few thousandths of that every year for a way better personal experience than that person spending $500. You might then only have about 0.1% of that billionaire's income getting taxed, while the rest rots in a bank account, never to be spent or become economically valuable to anyone.
The best tax system is one based on income, or better yet, including actual held wealth, because hoarding more produces less and less returns as time goes on, to the point that spending that money is more beneficial to that person than hoarding it and getting to keep, say, 1% or less of those earnings after taxes. (and even if they do keep hoarding, 99% of that money's going back to other people and programs anyways)
Spending that money returns it to the economy, which in turn provides more jobs, distributes that wealth to lower classes more than it would otherwise be if it just sat in a bank account, and is generally economically beneficial.
Essentially, an income + wealth tax is "hoard money too much and we will use it to benefit everyone", whereas a sales tax, even one limited just to nonessentials, is "if you don't choose to hoard your money and decide to spend it, then you gotta give a little back" Billionaires shouldn't get to decide if they're taxed or not, so why give them the ability to do so by tying it to if they choose to consume a given amount of nonessential goods?
So if my fist spontaneously uses force against a fascist's face, it's legal? Oh wait, I forgot, laws only apply to the people who don't like fascists now.
I would speculate that [reflected] light also has a unique color (wavelength) distribution that a plant could sense and respond to
It seems as far as we can tell, trees can detect "far red" spectrum light, suspected to be done via phytochromes, and that spectrum of light is in higher quantities when closer to other tree leaves because it gets reflected off.
They detect that, and don't grow as much in that direction since it would cause diminishing returns.
Good sentiment, but DO NOT SUPPORT "Americans for Tax Fairness", because they're actually a horrendous organization.
They want to abolish the IRS and abolish all federal income and capital gains taxes, (and repeal the amendment to the constitution that makes it possible in the first place) and instead have a tax exclusive rate of 30% sales tax to replace it.
As you should know, sales taxes are regressive taxes, because the poorest people spend the largest percent of their income, while billionaires spend less, and hoard more. Essentially, the richest people get the lowest tax rate, because they don't have to spend all of their income to survive, unlike someone living on the streets who'll have to spend every last penny they have just to get food, thus getting taxed on their entire income while billionaires only get taxed on part of theirs.
The original actual post by the researchers is here if anyone wants to know more about the actual details!
https://vmfunc.re/blog/persona/ (turn off your audio or mute the tab if you have regular speakers because it will just start randomly playing stuff if you don't lmao)
Life Pro Tips @lemmy.world If You Can't Avoid Shopping On Amazon, You Can Make Your Delivery Driver's Life Easier, Reduce Emissions, and Support Music Artists for Free!
Solarpunk @slrpnk.net (Video) Solarpunk: An Ideology Based on Pictures
Yup. The only difference between this and what any individual could already do is just time and scale.
Data brokers and government surveillance organizations have already had specialized tools to do this sort of thing for a while now, it's just that LLMs reduce the complexity and specialization needed to actually make an implementation that works well as an individual person.