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/)T

takeda

@ takeda @lemm.ee

Posts
0
Comments
529
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Ukraine deliberately blindsided Trump before massive drone attack on Russia

    Jump

  • I would imagine the first one to be true. There's no reason to inform everyone about it. I also predict Biden would be against it.

  • Ukraine deliberately blindsided Trump before massive drone attack on Russia

    Jump

  • Yeah, frankly I think it wouldn't even be good to tell Biden about it, he would likely discourage from that move. At best he would pretend he did not know about it.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • They are also pushing the identity politics, so we are distracted fighting among ourselves instead of uniting against them

  • Legendary Facebook Exec Scoffs, Says AI Could Never Be Profitable If Tech Companies Had to Ask for Artists' Consent to Ingest Their Work

    Jump

  • Have you noticed that all social media companies are involved in AI?

    The second use case (that looks even uglier) is to use it to simulate users on their platform and influence them via chat.

    Not only to buy certain products but also to change political views. Imagine how much money one can make by doing that. No more bot farms needed.

  • @grok is this chat?

    Jump

  • The LLM is being presented as a tool that can automate many jobs.

    I think the real reason why all social media companies are involved in it is something much worse. They want to use it to manipulate public opinion.

    Those "accidents" with Grok shows that it is being designed in that direction, and later it will be under many accounts that look like regular people. This is also why Twitter now a subsidary under xAI.

  • Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would ‘kill’ the AI industry

    Jump

  • IMO tech bros' main goal for this technology is to use it to manipulate public opinion on social media. It is perfect for it and the "daydreaming" (bullshitting) is perfect.

    Notice that all social media are involved in it, Twitter was "sold" to xAI, the recent incident with Grok about South African apartheid. The 10 year ban to regulate it by states etc.

    They talk about it increasing productivity (and are hoping that it could be used for that too), but if people would know it is meant for disinformation, they would be even more against skipping copyright for it.

  • Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would ‘kill’ the AI industry

    Jump

  • I think the primary goal of LLM is to use it on social media to influence public opinion.

    Notice that all companies that have social media are heavily invested in it. Also the recent fiasco with Grok taking about South African apartheid without being asked shows that such functionality is being added.

    I think talking about it to replace white collar jobs is a distraction. Maybe it can some, but the "daydreaming" (such a nice word for bullshit) I think makes the technology not very useful in that direction.

  • Stay positive

    Jump

  • Also please continue to protest, march, boycott, write to representatives (especially if they are Republican) etc.

    It might seem like it is pointless, as it doesn't have direct effect, as most people works think.

    But those actions encourage others with power to do the right thing (government workers, politicians, judges, lawyers etc). It also discourages ones that cooperate with the administration. Companies often look for the easy way, don't let the easy way be easy. Paul, Weiss for example is receiving effects of capitulating so fast to trump.

    Musk is hiding from media now (we should continue protests at Tesla's as well, he is still in the government, but got a bit smarter)

  • US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount

    Jump

  • Isn't that what they are doing?

  • Exposure might cause suffocation

    Jump

  • The 2nd version of this container should add purity percentage.

  • Exposure might cause suffocation

    Jump

  • It's basically distilled water, no?

  • True

    Jump

  • It is getting dangerous even if you are a citizen.

    I saw videos where people (not immigrants) were harassing ICE. They usually get high on power, so make them hate their jobs.

  • Here it is, our big unifying moment.

    Jump

  • This is retaliation for sanctioning Russia. He will back down once the wall street start sitting their pants about interest rate increasing for Treasury bills.

    He bankrupted 4 casinos, so he can bankrupt a country.

  • Here it is, our big unifying moment.

    Jump

  • Are they forgetting that in other countries there are other stores that don't have HQ in US?

  • Too soon?

    Jump

  • The Largest Upward Transfer of Wealth in American History

    Jump

  • Our problem is apathy. It is much more of us than them.

    If we succeed and still have democracy the laws can be reverted, but as I mentioned the apathy is the biggest problem and the reason how we got where we are.

  • The Largest Upward Transfer of Wealth in American History

    Jump

  • The Largest Upward Transfer of Wealth in American History

    Jump

  • The Largest Upward Transfer of Wealth in American History

    House Republicans voted to advance a bill that would offer lavish tax cuts for the rich while slashing benefits for the poor. By Jonathan Chait House Speaker Mike Johnson Kevin Dietsch / Getty May 22, 2025, 9:21 AM ET

    House Republicans worked through the night to advance a massive piece of legislation that might, if enacted, carry out the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history.

    That is not a side effect of the legislation, but its central purpose. The “big, beautiful bill” would pair huge cuts to food assistance and health insurance for low-income Americans with even larger tax cuts for affluent ones.

    Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, warned that the bill’s passage, by a 215–214 margin, would mark the moment the Republicans ensured the loss of their majority in the midterm elections. That may be so. But the Republicans have not pursued this bill for political reasons. They are employing a majority that they suspect is temporary to enact deep changes to the social compact.

    The minority party always complains that the majority is “jamming through” major legislation, however deliberate the process may be. (During the year-long debate over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans farcically bemoaned the “rushed” process that consumed months of public hearings.) In this case, however, the indictment is undeniable. The House cemented the bill’s majority support with a series of last-minute changes whose effects have not been digested. The Congressional Budget Office has not even had time to calculate how many millions of Americans would lose health insurance, nor by how many trillions of dollars the deficit would increase.

    The heedlessness of the process is an indication of its underlying fanaticism. The members of the Republican majority are behaving not like traditional conservatives but like revolutionaries who, having seized power, believe they must smash up the old order as quickly as possible before the country recognizes what is happening.

    House Republicans are fully aware of the political and economic risks of this endeavor. Cutting taxes for the affluent is unpopular, and cutting Medicaid is even more so. That is why, instead of proudly proclaiming what the bill will accomplish, they are pretending it will do neither. House Republicans spent months warning of the political dangers of cutting Medicaid, a program that many of their own constituents rely on. The party’s response is to fall back on wordplay, pretending that their scheme of imposing complex work requirements, which are designed to cull eligible recipients who cannot navigate the paperwork burden, will not throw people off the program—when that is precisely the effect they are counting on to produce the necessary savings.

    The less predictable dangers of their plan are macroeconomic. The bill spikes the deficit, largely because it devotes more money to lining the pockets of lawyers and CEOs than it saves by immiserating fast-food employees and ride-share drivers. Massive deficit spending is not always bad, and in some circumstances (emergencies, or recessions) it can be smart and responsible. In the middle of an economic expansion, with a large structural deficit already built into the budget, it is deeply irresponsible.

    In recent years, deficit spending has been a political free ride. With interest rates high and rising, the situation has changed. Higher deficits oblige Washington to borrow more money, which can force it to pay investors higher interest rates to take on its debt, which in turn increases the deficit even more, as interest payments (now approaching $1 trillion a year) swell. The market could absorb a new equilibrium with a higher deficit, but that resolution is hardly assured. The compounding effect of higher debt leading to higher interest rates leading to higher debt can spin out of control.

    House Republicans have made clear they are aware of both the political and the economic dangers of their plan, because in the recent past, they have repeatedly warned about both. Their willingness to take them on is a measure of their profound commitment.

    And while the content of their beliefs can be questioned, the seriousness of their purpose cannot. Congressional Republicans are willing to endanger their hold on power to enact policy changes they believe in. And what they believe—what has been the party’s core moral foundation for decades—is that the government takes too much from the rich, and gives too much to the poor.

  • Deleted

    Elon Musk’s Empire Is Crashing And It’s Not Just Tesla

    Jump

  • From some videos of him, it looks like he is either constantly high or his brain is already breaking.