atrielienz @ atrielienz @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

2,046

Joined

2 yr. ago

I haven't read your article yet, just the excerpt. But I have a question. Is the tool this disabled person is using something that could potentially be replicated in a way that doesn't rely on chatgpt?

There are Generative AI LLM's trained entirely on non stolen data that could be used for this purpose I believe. But even if there weren't, is there another piece of tech that could potentially take ChatGPT's place and still be equally as useful?

My answer is this: We may have made significant advances in medicine from the multiple times humans have experimented on other humans without their knowledge and consent. Those advances have definitely saved lives. However, that still doesn't make it right to experiment on someone against their will and without their knowledge. This may not be an equally egregious breach of ethics for a comparison, but I think you understand my point.

Just because there is a silver lining to a bad situation, doesn't mean the bad situation isn't bad.

Edit:

I followed the link, it's not an article, it's a cross post to another Lemmy post. I followed that to the video. Please note I have only watched about 15 minutes of this video. However, I have some additional thoughts.

This person used ChatGPT to code python software to give his brother (basically paralyzed from the neck down with no vocal abilities and poor eyesight) some significant quality of life upgrades that allowed him to better communicate and gave him free choice to do a number of activities. I can appreciate wanting to take a shortcut to get a resolution to those problems sooner rather than later, especially given his brother's condition. It makes sense to want to do this himself because he obviously had definite parameters in mind for this software.

However, he had already begun to learn python. Not only could he have continued to learn (and used resources like those that ChatGPT stole from in the first place), but he could also have collaborated with other people with similar special needs, giving them a chance to share the benefit of this software, and their loved ones or carers the chance to further this tool.

I went into this assuming that this tool used ChatGPT for the purposes of predictive text to speech or similar. That does not appear to be the case so far.

If chatGPT didn't exist this man would still have been able to develop this tool over time and perhaps with the help of some very talented coders who would be happy to help and even to troubleshoot, and give tips or share ideas.

I think my initial point still stands. But those are my thoughts.

It's a bad time for an increase economically. But when you realize that we have been paying $60 USD for games since at least the 90's and $60 in 90's money is something like $150 in 2025 money, you realize just how good we've had it for a long time. And then take into account that games have become more and more expensive to make (yeah yeah I understand that a lot of the cost is down to a lot of non-game development relevant jobs), you don't start to wonder why they didn't increase prices before?

I'm not saying we like it. I'm saying that anyone who's given it some thought can see why they might want to increase prices.

Some of them are just fine with the switch 2 hardware and even understand that game prices have been stagnant for some time. But Nintendo has been constantly showing us they aren't a company we want to continue to support and if you couple that with affordability you're gonna have a bad time.

They're charging $90 for a game that plays better on non-oem hardware than it did on it's original intended hardware, a game a lot of fans have already bought (who would still need to pay an additional $10 fee just to get the game running the way it probably should have run from the start).

I mean this in the best possible way, but Nintendo fans are avid collectors and they want this, but Nintendo dissuades them in multiple ways from showing support.

The sarcasm lost on you, or?

So, did the market tumble again after he said this nonsense?

They have 2 good points though (even if I generally agree with you that this is a first world problem). The first is that this will likely show up for parents who have lost a child or potential parents having fertility issues and that does suck.

The second is that it's just good UI to add a little box that says "never show this message again". It wouldn't take but the smallest iota of extra effort to do that. Annoying popups are honestly a first world problem. But they absolutely also show that these companies do not care, while these companies are trying to show they care.

Additionally, as others have said in the thread, programmers learn the skills required for debugging at least partially from writing code. So there goes a big part of the learning curve, turning into a bell curve.

Thanks! Fixed!

https://programming.dev/comment/16263170

https://www.hackmosphere.fr/bypass-windows-defender-antivirus-2025-part-1/

https://www.hackmosphere.fr/bypass-windows-defender-antivirus-2025-part-2/

This is what I could find.

It technically counts. It's a cipher that uses the same key for encryption and decryption.

Waiting to see if the prices still go up, because between this and the fact that windows 10 support is ending in October, I'm sure these companies are still going to try to gouge people.

They already had to "hide the phones". Literally France already passed a law stating that phones aren't allowed in elementary and middle schools for students. Those phones previously had to be kept in a backpack or pocket and weren't allowed to be used on the premises.

This new law does one singular thing, so far as I can tell (which isn't made clear in either of the articles I read). It actually actively makes students surrender phones at the beginning of the school day and locks those phones away in a centralized location the students don't have access to.

The problem with that is what I have been saying in subsequent comments. There are protocols in place for what happens when a student breaks the rules. But A. They mention nothing at all about how they will know a student is carrying around a phone in their pocket or using it in the bathroom. And B. they mention nothing about the repercussions for skirting such rules and regulations.

Additionally, if this is about student mental health (as they claimed), it does absolutely nothing to teach them about the dangers of cell phones, nor does it even remotely teach them to moderate cell phone use.

Don't know any delinquent teenagers do you? And don't even start with the "must be American BS" because I'd be happy to Google some news stories for you.

I can tell you didn't read either.

IP Laws that Enable Enshitifcation.

Man. I read the article. You all seem to be taking what I said as "I think students should have cell phones in schools". In actuality I don't think there's any reason for students to have cell phones in schools.

So my argument isn't that I think the ban is bad. My argument is that this is a piss poor way of going about it that doesn't really add any benefits (especially when you consider that the law preventing students from using cell phones in schools has been on the books since 2018).

So this is not an argument about what researchers found as far as differences in the mental health of students allowed to have phones (which is a big jump because at best the phones are tolerated in students pockets or bags not allowed to use them in school during lessons), vs those that aren't. That part of what has been said up and down this comment section is irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with my original comment.

I don't care what governments recognize about a correlation between student mental health or well being and cell phone use. That's not got anything at all to do with what I said.

If you're disappointed it's literally because you didn't read.

The article gives little to no detail about the law or what's changed. It makes claims that this was a pilot program implemented in 180 schools whereby students were required to place cell phones in a pouch or locker they couldn't access during school hours. It makes claims that this was successful, and therefore a ban will be implemented. It doesn't say if this ban will use the same protocol (having students place phones in a locked pouch or locker they don't have access to for the school day). It doesn't state how this differs at all from previous laws that prohibit students from using mobile phones on school premises which were implemented in 2018.

It doesn't explain what the "separation of student from phone" looks like, or what the repercussions will be for students found with a phone. It says nothing about protocols to properly store the devices (and what will happen in the event of an emergency where the device is a danger to students or property).

It gives literally no details, and doesn't even link to the law in question.

A further guardian article I found says it is receiving criticism for some of the problems I have previously detailed (though not all of them). That same article strongly advances the idea that cell phone use is a detriment to children's health and inference can be made that this is the main reason for such a ban, but this ban does not fundamentally solve this problem in any way.

It doesn't say they are expanding the implementation used in the trial nation wide. That is an assumption you made that the writer likely also made and didn't follow-up. This is just a poorly written article full stop.

Your argument is terrible, and poorly defended. You only went and read the article after you started making arguments to me. I read the article before I made my first comment because I had a lot of questions that were not answered and still haven't been answered. That's literally because the media is doing a poor job of explaining this situation and the law in question.

This is wasteful. It is short sighted. It does not fix or mitigate the problem and makes the problem worse for a lot of reasons that I can detail if you would like (but I doubt that will matter to you at all because you seem to be misunderstanding everything I've said).

This can be enforced. It will be detrimental to the school system as a whole. It is not a fix for any of the problems detailed. It doesn't change anything as far as I can tell and literally nobody has been able to come up with anything to validate what it would change, how it would change it for the better, or why the current rule structure and protocols in schools would benefit from it in any way.

So I'm saying it's shortsighted and either needs to be reworked, or criminalizing parents allowing their children to bring such materials into schools should be implemented instead.

They trialed 180 schools, forcing the student to hand over or otherwise stow these devices in a place they couldn't access for the duration of the school day. And they have "evidence" that it helps with the "child well-being, and focus".

So now they are making it mandatory for all schools? How? What protocols are they putting in place? I'm really curious. The article says nothing. It's basically a really poorly worded press release.

Are the schools providing a place to house these devices? That would be a liability.

Are the schools banning the devices in the premises? If so, what are they doing with the ones that are going to be confiscated?

Is this law going to hold the parents accountable in any meaningful way (besides the potential inconvenience of having to pick up the phone at the school in person)? If so, that would be the only potentially beneficial part of a law like this.

What does the school do with such contraband? Can they turn it over to an authority like the police? This could also potentially be a beneficial part of making such policy into law. Depends entirely on how it's implemented.

Why do people always assume criticism is " we should just do nothing? " What is wrong with looking at something and seeing that it might be flawed and speaking up?

So when one of these phones start a fire because it's been improperly kept and the battery has a thermal runaway event?

If the phone is always returned then literally the law does nothing. The phone is being given back to the student? That's a failure in the implementation of protocol or policy. You can't use that to claim my argument is invalid because it literally does not make sense in this context.

Flip that argument around for me and tell me what that argument is. Because what it seems like it boils down to is a version of favoritism which will still exist and be taken advantage of under the law. What does this law fix exactly? How does this law prevent favoritism?