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/)C

considerealization

@ considerealization @lemmy.ca

Posts
3
Comments
39
Joined
10 mo. ago

  • I'm not an expert in AI systems, but here is my current thinkging:

    Insofar as 'GenAI' is defined as

    AI systems that can generate new content, including text, images, audio, and video, in response to prompts or inputs

    I think this is genuinely bad tech. In my analysis, there are no good use cases for automating this kind of creative activity in the way that the current technology works. I do not mean that all machine assisted generation of content is bad, but just the current tech we are calling GenAI, which is of the nature of "stochastic parrots".

    I do not think every application of ML is trash. E.g., AI systems like AlphaFold are clearly valuable and important, and in general the application of deep learning to solve particular problems in limited domains is valuable

    Also, if we first have a genuinely sapient AI, then it's creation would be of a different kind, and I think it would not be inherently degenerative. But that is not the technology under discussion. Applications of symbolic AI to assist in exploring problem spaces, or ML to solve classification problems also seems genuinely useful.

    But, indeed, all the current tech that falls under GenAI is genuinely bad, IMO.

  • Those are not valuable use cases. “Devouring text” and generating images is not something that benefits from automation. Nor is summarization of text. These do not add value to human life and they don’t improve productivity. They are a complete red herring.

  • GenAI is a bad tool that does bad things in bad ways.

  • = (- 2)

  • Afaiu,

    • a real “Free market” is a myth.
    • A fully gov. Controlled market is not a free market by definition.
    • The problem with the Canadian housing market is not government regulation, it is excessive marketization (and not enough of the right kinds of regulation).
  • This is a case of “don’t let the bad make bad stuff worse”.

  • Removing taxes on tips is a stupid, pandering policy that, at best is just a distraction, and at worse a government subsidy to the restaurant industry.

    If we want more progressive taxation that benefits low income earners, we can just do that. Why should a barista make tax-free income but not a janitor? I’m fine with reducing taxes for lower income earners and increasing it for higher income earners. But why should it have anything to do with tips?

  • Lemmy.ca's Main Community @lemmy.ca

    Where to find the Fedecan Non-profit registration

  • Tell that to the hundreds of researchers who have their entire research programs and funding prospects thrown into the air, and/or outright cancelled.

  • Fucking bizarre take to lob at someone fleeing a country rapidly falling to fascism and ethnic cleansing.

  • This fact has me considering dropping bell more than the outage itself.

    It is totally indefensible for a telecom company to rely on X, steaming pile of inaccessible garbage that it is, for critical communications.

  • Yep, this basically is a government subsidy to the service industry, which then removes funds from essential government programs, like health and education.

    Another step towards an illibertarian hellscape. :(

  • These kinds of prescriptive gimmicks are very exasperating, imo.

  • Of course I am aware of the "notwithstanding clause", but this is not relevant for the strict majoritarian view you were espousing, is it? Moreover, "it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter" and the parts of the Charter subject to override are limited: "rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inviolable".

    To my mind, this is clearly all further evidence of the fact that our government is organized via an intricate (and ever-evolving) system with various overrides and corrective measures and balanced powers, and that it is in no way simply reducible to strict, %50+, majoritarian rule.

  • I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any sort of lawyer), but my understanding (and what I meant to say) was that unconstitutional laws are subject to legal correction, so sure , we may vote in whatever we want, but that doesn’t meant the law will stand or take effect.

    See e.g., http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp

    The reason we in Canada nowadays use the term referendum to mean mainly the non-binding  type is because at the beginning of the century the western provinces experimented with the binding referendum. But it was abandoned because the Manitoba law on the subject was declared unconstitutional in 1919, mainly on the ground that it usurped the power of the lieutenant-governor, as a representative of the crown, to veto legislation. It also interfered with the powers of the federal government, which appoints the lieutenant-governors and has the power to instruct them

  • The limits are decided as the society and its government are formed and as they develop. Just as you note, look at the process for amending the constitution or the fact that you can’t vote in unconstitutional laws.

    It just a basic fact about well functioning democratic systems that you have limits to majoritarian rule.

    There is a lot more to democracy than winners taking all in bare majority votes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring super majorities for some process, or requiring consensus in some cases, in having some things decided by experts instead of by vote, or by using deliberation with no voting in some cases.

    The important part of democratic governance is that we work together to develop and maintain well reasoned and functional systems that are stable and responsible to our changing needs, based on engagement and deliberation of the citizenry. Winner take all bare majoritarian voting is the least of it, honestly.

    Edit: it’s helpful imo to skim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy to get a sense of how varied and expansive democratic governance is.

  • That platitude does not convince me of anything. Some things should obviously require a super majority, or require additional process beyond voting, or not be subject to a vote ad all.

    Majoritarian rule is not the end all be all of a functioning democracy.

  • Videos @lemmy.world

    Free Style Toilet Jam ("I'll just listen")

  • Canada @lemmy.ca

    Fifty years in the making of Ontario’s housing crisis – a timeline - Canadian Centre for Housing Rights

    housingrightscanada.com /fifty-years-in-the-making-of-ontarios-housing-crisis-a-timeline/