Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)M
Posts
3
Comments
566
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Not really sure what you're getting at here. Turing was found guilty of a crime introduced to parliament by MP Henry Labouchere and passed by an all male parliament. Men had basically full control of society, and in fact a man was the one directly responsible for the situation surrounding the investigation that lead to Turings trial. The person you're responding to is adding that women were involved in code breaking and noted that this fact had far reaching implications throughout society. Though the UK is quite white, plenty of black women were affected by both the war and sex discrimination. Women tend to be more proLGBT, and the person you're responding to mentioned how DEI on the whole is important. You being dismissive of the work women put in and how that affected society doesn't really add much to the discussion.

    It's important that society move away from the "great man" theory of history, and context like the one the above commenter provided is needed for that pivot.

  • Not the person you're responding to, but "most likely, we already need to do a lot of optimization work in early access that we didn't necessarily want to do at that point" indicates to me that optimization was not a top priority. It's not unusual for people to optimize after a proof of concept or something, but I imagine in gaming (I don't do game dev admittedly) you don't want that too late in the process. If they're not planning on having it in early access, then their early consistent user base will be more worried about other things. If min spec is 8 then people with 4 won't get it or won't complain about poor performance because technically it's their machine that's the issue. Lack of complaints about that and feedback about other things further shifts the priority away from optimization. Plus, anyone who's worked in dev spaces or probably any kind of deliverable knows that there are things that just don't happen despite your best intentions. Things like optimization are the first to go in the dev space, so by openly admitting to putting it off, it does feel like an admission of "we were probably just not going to get around to it". In my experience, the further out you plan to optimize, the more man hours you end up wasting, so I don't see a company investing heavily in that at any point, but doing so post early launch seems wasteful if they legitimately cared about it.

  • "Oh don't worry, you won't have to actually load spreadsheets anymore, just give our AI full access to your files and it will do whatever you ask :)"

    Ideally, you're correct though and companies start investing in optimization. I don't see it going that way, but a girl can dream.

  • As a dirty commie, I agree, but unfortunately under capitalism it is just an avenue for exploitation. Large companies are deciding what we can or cannot have access to and setting the price for it in a manner completely divorced from what they're offering.

  • Or more realistically be used as an excuse for always online cloud based services a la office 365. "We would let you download the app, but most users don't have the computing power so instead we'll just make this a helpful subscription!"

  • I think one of the big issues is it often makes nonhuman errors. Sometimes I forget a semicolon or there's a typo, but I'm well equipped to handle that. In fact, most programs can actually catch that kind of issue already. AI is more likely to generate code that's hard to follow and therefore harder to check. It makes debugging more difficult.

  • Probably Viva La Dirt League. They make skits on YouTube and their own site about gaming.

  • You are suggesting a user configurable setting, but that's exactly what they had. Apple had a user wide setting, and then individual apps could ask to override that setting. I have personalized ads off in my general settings, and though I would never turn them on, if for whatever reason I did want to, the best way to get me to do that would be to ask in the specific app I wanted to give access to that. Absolutely no way I would change my overall settings just for the benefit of one app. Others have noted that a second layer of consent was only needed if you did not use the Apple provided ad option, because Apple already has your opt in/out on file. I hope this causes Apple to also display the pop-up for those using Apple ad options. Most people probably just agreed to the tracking when setting up their phone, so forcing Apple to show the pop-up even if an app is using Apple as their ad distributor is ideal in my opinion. Users will be much more likely to opt out even if their overall setting is opt in. This will ideally make Apple and non-Apple advertising options on an even playing field and is better for users. If anything, it's probably worse for developers because had they just chosen to use Apple ads before they were probably more likely to get targeted ads from the user since Apple would bypass the pop-up.

  • For a moment I thought you meant that there's a group of people looking at the sun and counting black spots that persist in their vision after doing so, then I realized how dumb that was and that you probably were talking about sun spots. That moment of confusion really got me going though.

  • It really is a big deal. You might not have liked them, but a human used to be employed to make these designs. The more we normalize or accept this the more bold they will become in feeding us nothing but slop. If you think they won't do the same for movies or TV or music you are wrong. We have to stop them here unless we want slop everywhere.

  • People can care about multiple things at once. You might not consider it high art, but at one point artists or graphic designers were coming up with these. It was helping that person feed their family. I'm not even personally against AI because it's stealing jobs or anything, but it's relatively well known that people that aren't hand to mouth are able to more actively engage in and support these "more important issues".

  • The "auction" is not a realtime auction that you might be used to IRL or anything, and these brands likely have AI already doing that. They likely have certain bid strategies and ad budgets. So they may be willing to pay up to $X to be in that spot for a user with demographic/behavior profile A and pay up to $Y for a user with profile B then the have an overall budget for that ad spot of $Q per day. All of those parameters are likely set by a specialized AI that monitors bid strategy over time. The AI might see that users with profile B download the app via the ad more often so they will spend more to capture that audience. It's possible companies have their own internal strategies, but most ad platforms have at least some of that analysis built in and will regularly offer recommendations based on the data and have had that available for years.

  • To add some context, per this article it seems like they only started after the wife was diagnosed with cancer and had to quit her job and they needed the money. They made 40-95k over the full duration of doing this. This absolutely does not take away from the truly horrific thing done to the deceased and their families, and is absolutely not an excuse, but it feels like a partial indictment on society. It seems like this was not something done solely out of greed or hubris, but desperation. There are undoubtedly others in worse situations who would never do this, but I just wish we didn't live in a society where people have to ask themselves the question "is respecting the bodily autonomy of this deceased person worth my wife's chemo this month?" I can't stress enough that I'm not attempting to make excuses for these people, just adding that context.

  • I'm glad he brought up the concern regarding a surveillance state. So much of past resistance and revolutionary efforts in part worked because the state couldn't be everywhere at once. There were "safe" places and "safe" people and the government really couldn't keep track of it all, but now we do not have that safety. Anyone's phone or computer can be hacked or tracked. Even their cars. Even just their faces can be followed throughout the country. What could previously have been disguised as a casual knitting circle is now a bunch of people who have to wear masks, unable to bring their phones with them, taking public transit and paying exclusively in cash having to meet in a tech free zone just to ensure they're not endangering each other. I'm not on the front lines personally chaining myself to things, and I have a lot of respect for people that do that, but even just organizing nowadays can get you on a passive surveillance list where no one has to lift a finger to continuously collect every piece of data on you imaginable. Of course there were always dangers, and there are plenty of things we have access to now, like encrypted chat options, but it is really concerning how tech has made fascism easier. The fact about the Netherlands and France was really interesting. I had no idea and I think it really adds to his point.

  • I don't have the data, but I wouldn't be surprised if people are more divided now, but the bread and circuses are just doing their jobs. Plus, there were politicians pushing for the war. I believe that if there was a political movement to separate today it would do really well, which is ostensibly what happened then.

    It's like when people point out we're more financially stratified than during the French Revolution. The lack of revolt is not the sole indicator of underlying sentiment. We live in a society and the parameters of it have changed drastically. People are more comfortable even when objectively exploited along more axis. There's also stricter control mechanisms such as facial recognition and flock cams.

  • I think my, and maybe others, main issues are:

    1. I don't know the training data of the AI tools
    2. I don't know the actual use in the workflow

    If the training data is the same as the popular image gen ones, then regardless of how it's used I don't support it. If a company is charging for/building a brand on AI tools the artists whose work trained the tools need to be compensated. If they are working with or paying for any of these models I think it supports a business that is stealing from artists.

    If you don't know what the training data is, there's no way to know for sure it's not replicating someone else's work in whole or in part in a way that an artist would not. Artists know how to take inspiration and pay homage without stealing, but if they don't actually know the original work that the AI is basing things off of, there's no way to ensure that.

  • Not the US. Trump.

  • Less than useless. Actually harmful. The shutdown itself hurt working families and they caved because they knew people would suffer next year with no subsidies. If they were gonna cave anyway they should never have started the shutdown. It was just for press so they can tie themselves to the idea of lower healthcare. In lieu of helping people now they are letting them suffer on the hope that if they suffer enough they'll vote blue. It's disgusting and transparent.

  • RPGMemes @ttrpg.network

    When it's been more than a week since the last session and we have to piece together what was happening

  • LGBTQ+ @beehaw.org

    Harry Potter TV Series Boycott

  • Gaming @beehaw.org

    Opinions on Content Creator Packs?