Skip Navigation

User banner

just another dev

@ admin @lemmy.my-box.dev

Posts
2
Comments
415
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • They're not taking it offline because they're denying those kids were bullies, but because they are now harassed themselves, but by the entire Internet.

    Obviously the kids responsible for the suicide should face consequences for their actions. But mob justice isn't going to fix anything, except for letting a new round of bullies feel good about themselves.

    Can you imagine the damage of one careless keyboard warrior digging up the wrong personal info, and then tend of thousands people harassing them? How many wrongs does it take to make a right?

  • So does that include running or even building/tuning a model yourself, or just sending money to a saas for api calls? The former would still be kinda interesting. The latter... That's just stupid AND boring.

  • As you can tell - basically deduced from context. I've never really seen the term zionist outside of xenofobic rants, so that's all I had to go on.

  • I'm not fully up to date on the details of these, but I was under the understanding that the whole zionism thing was just a racist conspiracy theory regarding a secret society of Jews controlling whatever.

    In that case, isn't the term inherently antisemitic, or are there also non-Jewish zionist theories?

  • This is an economic editorial, not tech news though.

  • No.

  • And that's the third time you've tried to put words into my mouth, rather than arguing my points directly.

    Have fun battling your straw men, I'm out.

  • you're wanting to give people the right to control other people's ability to analyze the things that they see on public display.

    For the second time, that's not what I want to do - I pretty much said so explicitly with my example.

    Human studying a piece of content - fine.Training a Machine Learning model on that content without the creator's permission - not fine.

    But if you honestly think that a human learning something, and a ML model learning something are exactly the same, and should be treated as such, this conversation is pointless.

  • No, Just the concept of getting a say in who can train AIs on your creations.

    So yes, that would leave room for a loophole where a human could recreate your creation (without just making a copy), and they could then train their model on that. It isn't water tight. But it doesn't need to be, just better than what we have now.

  • Agreed. It was fun as a thought exercise, but this failure was inevitable from the start. Ironically, the existence and usage of such tools will only hasten their obsolescence.

    The only thing that would really help is GDPR-like fines (based as a percentage of income, not profits), for any company that trains or willingly uses models that have been trained on data without explicit consent from its creator.

  • Well, just a month ago they couldn't pay out a bounty to Kaspersky for a 0day exploit they found due to the sanctions, so this seems a little off.

  • Who knows, maybe it'll teach people to be more skeptical of the things they read online, and actually look for the underlying sources.

  • so that corporations can make a few easier dollars before this whole planet burns in flames?

    Sure. But they do that by providing services. Services like Gmail and (probably for a large part) cloud hosting for other companies, companies whose services you're probably using as well.

    And honestly, it usually is more economical (Both financially as well as in eco footprint) for those companies to use cloud services that scale based on demand, rather than having a fixed set of servers running for the potential max capacity.

    Don't get me wrong, increased carbon emissions is bad, but the picture is a bit more nuanced than "Google flip switch, kill animals, get money".

    The AI hype (talk to your toaster!) will blow over, useful AI will remain and improve, this is just a hurdle along the way.

  • But why wouldn't those same limits not apply to biological controllers? A neuron is basically a transistor.

  • Because people don't read articles, and this way OP can still get the rage-engagement

    In a way, that's what I'm contributing to now as well. So that's why I'm not even going to

  • I'd wager the main reason we can't prove or disprove that, is because we have no strict definition of intelligence or sentience to begin with.

    For that matter, computers have many more transistors and are already capable of mimicking human emotions - how ethical is that, and why does it differ from bio-based controllers?

  • The line has been changed to be gender neutral 9 hours ago. Victory!

  • Oh my. Sometimes Betteridge's law of headlines is wrong.

  • I was about to mention this example. It's everything you love about mythbusters (doing crazy science experiments), without everything you hate about mythbusters and what made me stop watching. No more constant hopping over between the different myths per episode, or tons of recaps.

    Just myths, one at a time, no bullshit.