Yprum @ Yprum @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

101

Joined

2 yr. ago

Don't use fallacies to defend violence. Killing trump is not the only way to avoid that from happening. Becoming a terrorist and promoting violence against a political group contrary to your political opinion is not OK no matter how dangerous that group is. You are using the same discussion techniques that fucking maga asshats use. Seriously you don't see the issue on the way you are defending the idea that assassinating a political opponent is the only way to defeat that opponent?

You are defending the republican gun nutjob that went to shoot trump and accidentally killed someone else? You are saying his decision making was the kind of behaviour to glorify? The same kind of nut job that will happily join in the death squads you talk about? What the fuck, how does your brain work? How can you not see the hypocrisy of what you are saying...

Of course that's assuming a sincere take and not just some piece of shit bot or account made to increase violence hatred and division.

Sincerely I am baffled at the take most comments have on this... Does this mean that because trump is a fucking fascist piece of shit that calls for violence against anyone he doesn't like we have the right to call for violence against him? Just because trump is a disgusting waste of biological matter that rapes kids do we have the right to rape his kids? What the fuck is with all these comments calling coward to jack black for pointing out how out of place is such a thing to say... It's a joke that I could do, in a group of close friends, that I know how they will take it. I'm pretty sure jack black would have found it funny in private. But in the middle of a show? Do we really need to remind people that calling for violence is not OK? Yeah we could take his comment as a joke... But what if some people in the audience are unhinged enough to take it seriously? The comment was definitely out of place. Freedom of speech has limits, and his comment is very much crossing the limit.

Look, I'm not going to lie, if I hear trump drops dead randomly tomorrow I wouldn't feel particularly sad (or at all) but I wouldn't ask for him to be assassinated or call for terrorism against republicans no matter how wrong I think they are and how dangerous they can be. What the fuck... there's so many people here hoping for a fucking asshole to be assassinated it's kinda scary even. That's not the solution against trump or republicans...

Well damn, thank you so much for the answer. That has gone well and beyond what I'd have called a great answer.

First of all I just wanted to acknowledge the time you put into it, I just read it and in order to make a meaningful answer for discussion I probably need to read your comment a couple more times, and consider my own perspective on those topics, and also study a few drops of information you gave where sincerely you lost me :D (being a neutral monist, and about Searle and such, I need to study a bit that area). So, I want to give an adequate response to you as well and I'll need some time for that, but before anything, thanks for the conversation, I didn't want to wait to say that later on.

Also, worth mentioning that you did hit the nail in the head when you summed up all my rambling into a coherent one question/topic. I keep debating myself about how I can support creators while also appreciating the usefulness of a tool such as LLMs that can help me create things myself that I couldn't before. There has to be a balance somewhere there... (Fellow programmer brain here trying to solve things like if you are debugging software, no doubt the wrong perspective for such a complex context).

UBI is definitely a goal to be achieved that could help in many ways, just like a huge reform of copyright would also be necessary to remove all the predators that are already abusing creators by taking their legal rights on the content created.

The point you make of anthropomorphizing LLMs is absolutely a key point, in fact I avoid all I can mentioning AI because I believe it muddles the waters so much more than it should (but it's a great way of selling the software). For me it goes the other way actually and I wonder how different we are from an LLM (oversimplifying much...) in the methods we apply to create something and where's the line of being creative vs depending on previous things experienced and basing our creation in previous things.

Anyway, that starts getting a bit too philosophical, which can be fun but less practical. Respecting your other comment, I do indeed follow Doctorow, it's fascinating how much he writes, and how clear he can expose ideas. It's tough to catch up with him at times with so much content. I also got his books in the last humble bundle, so happy to buy books without DRM... I'll try to think a bit more these days on these topics and see what I can come up with. I don't want to continue rambling like a madman without setting some order to my own thoughts first. Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation.

I would love to hear your opinion on something I keep thinking about. There's the whole idea that these LLMs are training on "available" data all over the internet, and then anyone can use the LLM and create something that could resemble the work of someone else. Then there's the people calling it theft (in my opinion wrong from any possible angle of consideration) and those calling it fair use (I kinda lean more on this side). But then we have the side of compensation for authors and such, which would be great if some form for it would be found. Any one person can learn about the style of an author and imitate it without really copying the same piece of art. That person cannot be sued for stealing "style", and it feels like the LLM is basically in the same area of creating content. And authors have never been compensated for someone imitating them.

So... What would make the case of LLMs different? What are good points against it that don't end up falling into the "stealing content" discussion? How to guarantee authors are compensated for their works? How can we guarantee that a company doesn't order a book (or a reading with your voice in the case of voice actors, or pictures and drawings, ...) and then reproduces the same content without you not having to pay you? How can we differentiate between a synthetic voice trained with thousand of voices but not the voice of person A but creates a voice similar to that of A against the case of a company "stealing" the voice of A directly? I feel there's a lot of nuances here and don't know what or how to cover all of it easily and most discussion I read are just "steal vs fair use" only.

Can this only end properly with a full reform of copyright? It's not like authors are nowadays very well protected either. Publishers basically take their creation to be used and abused without the author having any say in it (like in the case of spot if unpublished a artists relationship and payment agreements).

I just wanted to say, it's refreshing to read a well argumented comment such as this one. It's good to see every once in a while there are still some people thinking things through without falling for automatic hatred to either side of a discussion.

I loved this game! It's quite original but I think the developer hasn't really improved it since at least 10 years and the screen size is not used really well with the resolution of the game basically locked.

But the reason the planet burns is because of how we generate the energy, not because of using energy. I'm not defending all these fucked up greedy corporations and their use of AI, machine learning, LLMs or whatever crap they are trying to get us to use want or not, but our real problem is based on energy generation, not consumption.

But is it the tool that has the negative impact or is it the corporations that use the tool with a negative impact? I think it is an important distinction, even more so when this kind of blaming the AI stuff sounds a lot to distraction techniques, "no don't look at what has caused global warming for the last century, look at this tech that exploded over the last year and is consuming crazy amounts of energy". And saying that, I want to make sure its clear, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be handled, discussed or criticised (the use of AI I mean), as long as we don't fall into irrational blaming of a tool that has no such issue.

I didn't know about the mod stuff, but also not sure why you mention it, am I going to find myself mod of some weird shit now? X)

But then the problem is how google uses AI, not AI itself. I can have an LLM running locally not consuming crazy amounts of energy for my own purposes.

So blaming AI is absurd, we should blame OpenAI, Google, Amazon... This whole hatred for AI is absurd when it's not the real source of the problem. We should concentrate on blaming and ideally punishing companies for this kind of use (abuse more like) of energy. Energy usage also is not an issue in itself, as long as we use adequate energy sources. If companies start deploying huge solar panel fields on top of their buildings and parkings and whatnot to cover part of the energy use we could all end up better than before even.

I like the idea of the keyboard being offline and the LLM stuff but so far I can't see a way for multi language input. I'm guessing it's too early in the alpha state for that but I will keep an eye open for it, it is a promising project. In the meantime I'll test the heliboard others were mentioning.

Who are you and how did you read my diary?

Ah indeed, you are right, somehow I missed the unexpected part. I guess because this applies to just about any meeting to me, not only the unexpected ones so I just applied it generally x)

Absolutely great write up. Thanks for sharing it, I didn't know of it and I'm saving it to share when applicable.

Actually the right side graph needs a correction from my point of view. The decline in productivity doesn't happen sharply when the meeting starts. For me the decline starts between 15 to 30 minutes before the meeting slowly, as I can hardly concentrate concerned that I might miss the start. If I'm ever in hyper concentration mode, most likely I'll miss the start of the meeting.

I've always wondered what people use for MOCs, I just can't get to dismantle the things I have built so I don't really have a lot of loose pieces around. I might have to check this bricklink to see how it goes.

I love it, might grab it in the future. I built the painting of Darth Vader which only has the round 1x1 buttons and it was oddly relaxing to build, albeit completely different than any other build I've done before. This one with far more complex pieces might be quite fun in yet a different way.

Also ü for Spain is missing, uncommon but definitely used and important.

Why would you make the immigrants suffer his presence? They have it hard enough as it is. I prefer to think he'll get to make some nice friends in prison.

I'm so glad to see this posted. The whole meme of bear vs man made me feel at odds and while I saw what the point was that it tried to raise it still didn't really do a great job to me. After a lot of thinking about it and discussing it in other threads I finally understood what I feel is the issue. While the answer given by most (if not all) women is shocking and shows the feeling of uncertainty and unsafeness the question is framed in such a way that it creates division and sexism. The problem is not what women are answering, the issue is that it puts men on the other side without any more thought. It divides us into women vs either men or bears. I'm not a woman, I'm not a bear, and I don't want to be a man seen as a danger. I understand the issue and I want to be part of the solution and create a safer world for everyone.

This whole topic wouldn't have made me see the problem if it wasn't for the effect that other ways to raise awareness have had in the past. For me the greatest method to raise awareness was the #metoo movement. That's when I could see the issue and what kind of effect it has. It was a movement that didn't automatically make me feel excluded, it was a movement that raised awareness of the victims, but it didn't have to be only women, also men that had been victims could raise it if they felt empowered by it. It was horrifying seeing the spread of it, and then there must be all the ones that didn't say anything. That's a movement I can get behind, that's the way to raise awareness. Since then I try to be more aware of the kind of behavior that creates those feelings of unsafeness for women and if I would ever notice something done by others I'd try to step up. The whole man vs bear is terrible at doing the same.

After a lot of thinking and reading a lot of the answers here (only considering the actually serious ones, not the ones dismissing what it means that women answer the bears or the ones that dismiss the answers of men unhappy about the comparison) I've come up with what bothers me of the whole situation and since you seemed to actually be really polite in the discussion and spent the effort on giving me a different point of view I wanted to post my realization and thought process with an answer for you but also hoping others will see it.

The issue we are facing with this hypothetical situation and question, "would you rather meet a random unknown man or a bear alone in the forest?", is that instead of raising awareness of the issue, instead of trying to find a solution, it is increasing the problem, it increases and promotes the fear. Let me explain better.

The issue I feel is clearer if we change the question not to aim sexism and sexual assault, but aim it at describing racism and violence due to racism. If you are a black person (we could simplify by assuming a man, to avoid getting again into the gender differences), would you want to meet a random white guy or a bear alone in the forest? Now, black people can and definitely are suffering racism at different levels constantly, depending where they live we can say that most have been the objective of some racist behavior. If they answer "I'd rather face a bear than a random white guy" because they are afraid they are going to end up meeting a white dude that is racist and would attack them due to race, it demonstrates a big issue that there's that fear but there's no way around the fact that the question is racist and pushes the racism forward by increasing the fear of any random white guy when in average no white person would wish any bad to any other race (which doesn't mean racism isn't a big issue in society).

The hypothetical question is a sexist question the way it is made that enforces the fear of any man. We need to make this very clear. Men are not rapists by default. Men won't assault a woman when they get a chance. When a man is not attacking a woman it is not for a lack of opportunity. That's what this hypothetical does, it tells that the only thing needed for a random man to assault a woman is an opportunity. Way too many women suffer sexual assault, it is a problem too widespread, but not because all men do it, but because most women suffer it. The answer to the hypothetical question should be "a man, because a random man out of the whole population is nearly without a doubt not going to be a rapist". The fact that the answer is not that, means that we as a society are failing at making half the population feel safe. See, the problem is not the answer of women, the problem is the question, the question causes more damage than anything by enforcing the fear and dividing society between men and women. Instead of dividing society between rapists, assaulters and victims. Most women are victims of sexual assault, but not only women are victims. By setting the question as man vs bear, it enforces a different type of sexism. Men that feel that sexism and raise the issue are being marked as part of the problem, as assaulters. If I feel that the question is sexist and problematic it must mean that I don't care for women and their safety, I'm a bear too... That's what this question is proving to me, the amount of sexism still present both ways and how unsafe women feel around unknown men.

I think that this hypothetical is dangerous, it creates division based on gender, it makes sexism a bigger issue instead of fighting it. Instead, better ways of handling this topic could be such as raising awareness of how many victims of sexual assault there are the way it was done with the #metoo tag (if I remember correctly that's what it was called) in social networks where many victims felt empowered to come out and show how many there are. Independent of gender. Another good way to raise awareness is another thread I saw yesterday asking women what they would do if they had 24 hours where there would be no men around without consequences for them, after 24 hours they are back and all continues as usual. Most were answering that they would dress nice, even provocative, put make up, go out with girlfriends and drink, without the fear of being abused, assaulted or worse. That shows the real problem. That tells a lot about the lack of safety for women specifically without making the men that are also victims feel like part of the problem. We can tell how women feel normally, without muddling the waters by comparing men to bears, and equating victims to women and men as the problem, when men can also be victims. We need to address these issues, yes. But not like this. Not making sexism a bigger issue.