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/)Z
Posts
5
Comments
183
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Al dente noodles are also unpleasant. Just cook them a minute or two longer.

  • Our internal slack channels contain more and more AI-written posts, which makes me think: Thank you for throwing this wall of text on me and n other people. Now, n people need to extract the relevant information, so you are able to “save time” not writing the text yourself. Nice!!!

    I think this is one of your best bets as far as getting a real policy change. Bring it up, mention that posts like that may take less time to "write", but that they're almost always obnoxiously verbose, contain paragraphs that say essentially nothing, and take far longer to read than a hand-typed message would. The argument that one person is saving time at the expense of dozens (?) of people losing time may carry a lot of weight, especially if these bosses are in and read the same Slack channel.

    Past that I'd just let things go as they are, and take every opportunity to point out when AI made a problem, or made a problem more difficult to solve (while downplaying human-created problems).

  • Their retraction article makes it crystal clear that their reporters are not allowed to use AI output in articles at all, unless it's explicitly for demonstration purposes. That rule was broken. They took appropriate action, apologized, and made a commitment to do better.

    I, frankly, believe them - ars is the news outlet I've frequented longer than any other for a reason. I understand if it's going to take more for you to believe them, but it's just one mistake. It's also not clear to me what they could have done in this situation that would have felt like enough to you? Were you hoping for a play-by-play of who entered what into ChatGPT, or a firing or something?

    I'm also not sure I'd consider the saga over. It wouldn't overly surprise me if at some point this week we get a longer article going into more detail about what happened.

  • I think their response is perfectly reasonable. They took the article down and replaced it with an explanation of why, and posted an extremely visible retraction with open comments on their front page. They even reached out and apologized to the person who had the made-up quote attributed to them.

    There are so many other outlets that would have just quietly taken the original article down without notice, or perhaps even just left it up.

  • My take on their comment was that they know this but consider it their 'religion' anyways because they don't understand the process and so, in the absence of true understanding, take it on faith alone that the process actually works out

    But the evidence is all around us even if you don't understand the processes themselves: Science built us a moon landing, religion built us the dark ages

  • Why not? FDR had a podcast.

  • They can pass a bill all they want, but if they're trying to regulate things like what a federal officer wears while on duty, it's going to get struck down by the courts, in this administration or any other.

  • States have virtually no authority to regulate federal agents in that way. That's why you don't see laws like that.

  • Would you be nervous if your neighbor installed a gas fireplace?

    Well now I would be...

  • When people say that, they aren't implying the left are are morally superior. They're implying the right has double standards. That the right is only interested in holding politicians on the left accountable, while giving politicians on the right free pass to do whatever.

    It's obviously true, and it's a problem for the left, but it's a problem of the right.

  • Some people said "We don't like socialism" and some others said "Aye" and we're all supposed to care because of their job or something

  • "All issues have only one sensible side and the rest are insensible" is not the takeaway from their comment. Some issues have multiple sensible sides. Other issues might have one sensible sides and several nonsense sides. All their last comment did was provide an example of the latter. They seem to take no stance on what type of issue their first example is.

  • I think most people missed the point of my comment as an ironic statement mocking the hypocrisy of the democratic establishment in this race.

  • Vote blue no matter who.

  • Welcome to Moe's!

  • not with that attitude

  • come on

    Jump
  • Can we skip ahead to the part with the gas station?

  • All I was commenting on was the tax comment, and this still has no relevance to that

  • The USPS is mostly self-funding, receiving very little at all through taxes, so... yeah.

  • No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world

    From a purely political perspective, if you oppose the US tariffs as a US resident, should you buy or avoid buying products subject to tariffs?

  • Programming @programming.dev

    Why is pynput typing incorrect output, but only on Linux?

  • No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world

    What happens when I ignore the cookie preference dialogue on websites?

  • You Should Know @lemmy.world

    YSK you can use uBlock Origin to block Lemmy posts containing certain words

  • Fediverse @lemmy.world

    So, how many lemmynsfw.com communities have you blocked?