NevermindNoMind @ NevermindNoMind @lemmy.world

Posts

38

Comments

363

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't know why he's associated with socialism and at this point I'm too afraid to ask.

Another logical inconsistency I'd love a reporter to actually press a politician on. Republicans believe "life begins as conception" and have signed onto fetal personhood amendments. Fine. But if you believe that life begins at conception, when sperm meets egg, then you must believe that you sky daddy creates a new life at that exact moment.

The logical conclusion of this position is exactly what the Alabama supreme court decided. If you believe that life begins (i.e., god created a new sacred human life) the moment that little spermy wiggles into the egg, then what does it matter where that happens, in utero or in a petri dish? The cells still divide and grow the same way in either case. So, if that's your belief, and you force that belief on everyone through laws, then of course it's "murder" to destroy an embryo.

What's fucked is Republicans realize the practical effect of carrying that logic through is an effective ban on all IVF, or at best a major reatriction on how it's done (one fertilization at a time, instead of fertilizing a bunch and implanting the most viable candidates), and that's unpopular as shit. So now their trying to back track with dumbass stances like it doesn't count if it's not in the womb. BULLSHIT. Don't let them off with that shit. It's either the sperm goes in and the magical old man gives it a kiss and now it's a baby, or not, it doesn't matter where it happens. If Republicans try to wiggle around that, journalists need to press them and get them to specifically answer when exactly is it that the fairy dust turns these cells into a person, and why doesn't the fairy dust work outside the womb, and does the fairy dust start working the moment it goes into the womb, or what?! Republicans want to impose their dumb shit religious beliefs on all of us, they should at least be able to (and should be forced to) explain them in detail.

We had I think six eggs harvested and fertilized, of those I think two made it to blastocyst, meaning the cells doubled as they should by day five. The four that didn't double correctly were discarded. Did we commit 4 murders? Or does it not count if the embryo doesn't make it to blastocyst? We did genetic testing on the two that were fertilized, one is normal and the other came back with all manner of horrible deformities. We implanted the healthy one, and discarded the genetically abnormal one. I assume that was another murder. Should we have just stored it indefinitely? We would never use it, can't destroy it, so what do? What happens after we die?

I know the answer is probably it wasn't god's will for us to have kids, all IVF is evil, blah blah blah. It really freaks me out sometimes how much of the country is living in the 1600s.

There's tons of legislation, proposed and enacted, aimed at lowering rent prices, primarily aimed at increasing supply. Things like prohibiting zoning restrictions that limit single family housing, providing incentives for infill developments and affordable housing bonuses, and allowing rent control ordinances.

The article doesn't say "there is only one bill related to housing this legislative session and it's for pets". Just because a bigger problem exists doesn't mean you have to ignore every other problem until the big one is fixed.

Landlords prohibiting pets is a housing issue because it effectively limits the housing that is available to people. I know when I was looking for an apartment because I had two cats that eliminated probably 50% of housing options I had. I don't know what this does to the market overall, but I'd bet it does something.

Per ownership is also an objectively positive thing, both for animals in shelters that need homes and for the mental health of people. Landlord restrictions functionally turn pet ownership into a privilege only available to the landed gentry. It's shitty.

So anyway, this bill addresses a problem and does some good. Just because it won't singlehandedly solve all the country's housing affordability problems in one swoop doesn't mean you have to dismiss it.

I doubt OpenAI is about to run a AI driven search product supported by ads, so I don't know that this is a direct competition. This looks more aimed at outfits like Perplexity.AI. Right now most people are still interested in who has the best models. But at some point all the models will be good enough to the average consumer, much like ass smartphones have good enough processors, and the question becomes what can they do. OpenAI in particular seems intent on building out ChatGPT to be some kind of all encompassing do everything assistant.

Some are, sure. But others have to do with the weight. The most interesting rationals for returning it are because it's shit as a productivity tool. So if you can't really use it for work, there aren't many games on it, then why are you keeping it? At that point it's just a TV that only you can watch (since it doesn't support multiple user profiles).

As a listener of Knowledge Fight, and thus Alex Jones Infowars, part of his explanation has something to do with god and the literal devil and (I swear) intergalactic contract law. Something about the globalists can only get away with their depopulation plans if they provide warning first, and thus we all accept the contract or something, so that's why the globalists leave clues in plain site. Cause they have to, cause intergalactic contract law.

People who meme "the frogs are gay" are truly only scratching the surface of how insane and dangerous that guy and his followers are.

Very interesting. So the VPN that comes with Google one is useless lol. The first time I connected it routed me through Google (like it's supposed to), then through an ad network (!), then on my way. Switching it on and off half a dozen times for additional tests, it just didn't bother routing through Google at all, just straight through my wireless carrier and showing the same user IP each time. So neat.

I don't know enough to know whether or not that's true. My understanding was that Google's Deep mind invented the transformer architecture with their paper "all you need is attention." A lot, if not most, LLMs use a transformer architecture, though your probably right a lot of them base it on the open source models OpenAI made available. The "generative" part is just descriptive of the model generating outputs (as opposed to classification and the like), and pre trained just refers to the training process.

But again I'm a dummy so you very well may be right.

Putting aside the merits of trying to trademark gpt, which like the examiner says is commonly used term for a specific type of AI (there are other open source "gpt" models that have nothing to do with OpenAI), I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate how incredibly bad OpenAI is at naming things. Google has Bard and now Gemini.Microsoft has copilot. Anthropic has Claude (which does sound like the name of an idiot, so not a great example). Voice assistants were Google Assistant, Alexa, seri, and Bixby.

Then openai is like ChatGPT. Rolls right off the tounge, so easy to remember, definitely feels like a personable assistant. And then they follow that up with custom "GPTs", which is not only an unfriendly name, but also confusing. If I try to use ChatGPT to help me make a GPT it gets confused and we end up in a "who's on first" style standoff. I've reported to just forcing ChatGPT to do a websearch for "custom GPT" so I don't have to explain the concept to it each time.

Interesting perspective! I think your right in a lot of ways, not least that it's too big and heavy now. I'd also be shocked if the next iPhone didn't have an AI powered siri built in.

I guess fundamentally I am skeptical that we're all going to want a screens around us all the time. I'm already tired of my smart watch and phone buzzing me with notifications, do I really want popups in my field of vision? Do I want a bunch of displays hovering in front of my while I work? I just don't know. It seems like it would be cool for a week or so, but I feel like it'd get tiring to have a computer on your face all day, even if they got the form factor way down.

Apple has always had a walled garden on iOS and that didn't stop them from becoming a giant in the US. Most people are fine with the App Store and don't care about openness or the ability to do whatever they want with the device they "own." Apple would probably love to have a walled garden for Macs as well, but knows that ship has sailed. Trying to force "spatial computing" (which this article incorrectly says was an Apple invention, it's not Microsoft came up with that term for its hololense) on everyone is a great way to move to a walled garden for all your computing, with Apple taking a 30% slice of each app sale. I doubt the average Apple user is going to complain about it either so long as the apps they want to use are on the App Store.

I think the bigger problem is we're in a world where most people, especially the generations coming up, want less screens in their life, not more. Features like "digital well-being" are a market response to that trend, as are the thousands of apps and physical products meant to combat screen addiction. Apple is selling a future where you experience reality itself through a screen, and then you get the privilege of being up to clutter the real world with even more screens. I just don't know that that is a winner.

It's funny too because at the same time AI promises a very different future where screens are less important. Tasks that require computers could be done by voice command or other minimal interfaces, because the computer can actually "understand" you. The Meta Ray-Ban glasses are more like this, where you just exist in the real world and you can call on AI to ask about the things you're seeing or just other random questions. The Human AI pin is like that too (doubt it will take off, but it's an interesting idea about where the future is headed).

The point is all of these AI technologies are computers and screens getting out of your way so you can focus on what your doing in the real world, whereas Apple is trying to sell a world where you (as the Verge puts it) spend all day with an iPad strapped to your face. I just don't see that selling, I don't think anybody wants that world. VR games and stuff are cool because you strap in for a single emersive experience, and then take the thing off and go back to the real world. Apple wants you spending every waking moment staring at a screen, and that just sounds like it would suck.

Nice office space, nice view, too bad about the flying stingrays.

I think it's intentionally wordy and the opt-out is "on" by default. I am usually instinctively just trying to hit the "off" button as quickly as possible and hitting save so I can get rid of the window, without actually reading anything. I almost certainly would have accidentally opted in to third party tracking.

I fully admit I might just be dumb though.

This exactly. There's a term for it, something like liars advantage, I can't remember. Just the existence of deep fakes now gives a shameless politician the ability to yell "deepfake" at any damaging media. Image of the Access Hollywood tape came out today, Trump and his ilk would immediately claim it's a deepfake. Now imagine if there were dozens of high profile actual deep fakes of Trump before the Access Hollywood tape, it would be that much easier for Trump to discredit it, and all that much easier for voters inclined to support Trump to dismiss it.

Besides, what deepfake is going to sway anyone's opinion of Trump? After the access Hollywood tapes, jury findings that he sexually assaulted E.G. Carol, fucking lying about the results of the election and fomenting insurrection, and Republicans don't give a shit, what deepfake is going to tip the scales?

I don't use TikTok, but a lot of the concern is just overblown China bad stuff (CCP does suck, but that doesn't mean you have to be reactionary about everything Chinese).

There is no direct evidence that the CCP has some back door to grab user data, or that it's directing suppression of content. It's just not a real thing. The fear mongering has been about what the CCP could force ByteDance to do, given their power over Chinese firms. ByteDance itself has been trying to reassure everyone that that wouldn't happen, including by storing US user data on US servers out of reach of the CCP (theoretically anyway).

You stopped hearing about this because that's politics, new shinier things popped up to get people angry about. North Dakota or whatever tried banning TikTok and got slapped down on first amendment grounds. Politicians lost interest, and so did the media.

Now that's not to say TikTok is great about privacy or anything. It's just that they are the same amount of evil as every other social media company and tech company making money from ads.

I don't know, but I don't think its as straightforward as blocking a merger on antitrust grounds. Maybe there is a national security angle, perhaps the national defense authorization act that gets trotted out for like everything these days. After all steal is important in wartime (but it's not like factories are being moved to Japan). But even then you'd have to give the middle finger to an important ally, tell shareholders their not going to get a big windfall from the sale, and then sit back and wait for the inevitable consolidation layoffs to roll in during the middle of an election. Not great options. Or you could try to educate the American public that the sale is actually overall a good thing, but good luck with that, especially with shameless Republicans, especially trump, howling about globalism and whatnot. Even Dems who understand this, like Sherrod Brown, are agitating against it cause the politics are rotten. If the public was literate and capable of nuance, this would be a lot easier, but that ship sailed at least 40 years ago.

I read an article on this that this sale is actually a great thing for America in general. The sale price to the Japanese company was much higher that what the US competitor would have offered, so a win for shareholders. If the US buyer would have won there would have been massive layoffs to account for redundancies in the consolidated company, so the sale to the Japanese company is a win for workers. Japan is one of America's most steadfast allies, so not much national security risk.

The overall deal is pretty good, but the Boogeyman of foreign ownership is just too politically toxic. Just example 1,000 of how nuance is completely lost on both the public and the politicians beholden to the public.

Meh. My work gives me the choice of Chrome and Edge. I decided to try edge to get access to bing chat last year, and I've found it to be a pleasant experience compared to chrome. It's got some neat features, and the built in copilot AI can be handy. I haven't missed chrome (or Google for that matter) in the year I've been using edge. It's fine. Still use Firefox on my personal laptop and phone though.

Now, a larger-than-necessary hidden layer may increase computational demands and the likelihood of overfitting. These are not concerns for our purposes, however, as we have no time constraints and it is highly improbable that a realistic model of Barry can be over-trained (Consolidated Report Cards: 1986-1998).

Thank you for sharing this, I love everything about it.