Skip Navigation

User banner

just another dev

@ admin @lemmy.my-box.dev

Posts
2
Comments
415
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • You keep trying to move the conversation to different subjects, but I want to address your initial claim - inviting a third party to do an independent investigation of a company's alleged wrongdoings. I never heard of such a thing occurring.

    But fine, let's go with your example.

    If there was a scandal at GN, and they'd use that crowd source money to pay for a third party investigation, it would somehow be better than what LMG did now?

  • That's not what I was referring to. I meant using a commercial third party investigation for the alleged wrongdoings of a company (just like what happened here), except it's funded through crowd sourcing. When has that ever happened?

    Like, who is the demographic that would pay for that? In the end, I figure it would still most likely be an invested party coughing up a substantial part of the money.

  • What.

    In what world does this happen?

  • TLDR: nothing new in this article from what we heard earlier this week.

  • The scary thing is, even when there is a button "only required" right next to it, it's scary how many people automatically click "accept all". Even among tech-savy people.

    The conditioning is frightening.

  • I couldn't watch more than a few moments either because, as someone else mentioned, I prefer to take this kind of content in text form. Having said that...

    Because he is obnoxious and so sure of his bad takes as if they're fact, as opposed to shit opinions.

    I got a chuckle out of the irony here.

  • Without datamining and that works out of the box? Please let us know when you find out.

  • And then they started putting ads for subscriptions in the os.

  • I checked the report, but it seems at no point it seems to clarify what they consider "bot traffic". Is it measured in api calls, page views, or bytes? Generally the term traffic is meant as raw data transported, but in that context those numbers make no sense.

    For example, one of the biggest traffic consumers in the Internet is video streaming. There's no way in hell that half, or even a tenth, of that data is fake - it would simply cost too much to waste it on bots. Both for the bot owners as well as the streaming providers.

    This level of vagueness and lack of transparency (what do the numbers mean, and where do they come from) does not fill me with confidence on this report.

  • Only in the last case there is a chance that the amount of jobs will remain the same, the other cases will lead to lost jobs.

  • But the amount of workers will only stay the same if demand grows at the same rate as the production output.

  • Counterpoint: we don't get much articles about human drivers crashing, because we're so used to it. That doesn't make it a good metric to consider their safety.

    Edit: Having said that, this wasn't even an article. Just an unsourced headline with a photo. One should strongly consider the possibility of a selection bias at work here.

    • "AI means there will be fewer people required to do the same amount of work"
    • "this does not mean higher unemployment"

    I think you left out a steep off reasoning there. At least, I don't follow.

  • Because lawsuits are expensive, even when you're not guilty.

    I don't think they'd be stupid enough to lie about hiring a voice actress for a voice model when they didn't.

  • Wow, time goes that fast where you live? I'm posting this 15 minutes after you, so that's like 2 weeks for you.

    Got any stock tips?

  • As someone who uses Linux as a daily driver for both work and home, I have this very easy trick on making Linux more popular:

    I don't.

  • TLDR: "AI" is not always right, and does not fulfil all dreams you may have of it.

  • Agreed. Would have worked better if it said "tangled up". This is too much of a stretch.