Yup, the classic, "just because you’ve been paying a landlord 1800 a month for your one bedroom appartment that’s almost certainly going to be over 2000 in a year you’ve crammed your family into, why would I trust you to pay a 1400 a month mortgage.
We’ve heard your pleas, you are sick of your web browser shoving AI down your throat… well worry no more.
What if instead of forcing an AI in your web browser, we force a web browser in your AI!
Reminds me of a little story by Steven Fry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzfCtGFgRSk
The TL DR if you don’t want to watch the 2 minute video.
He winds up on a tour by the mormons, The leader talks about how when you die you go to be with all of your families forever, Steven raises his hand and asks “but what happens if you were good?”. and they asked him to leave the tour
I do aknowledge that’s always going to be the problem when we have the human + AI driver combinations.
Safest hypothetical is 100% AIs that always follow the same rules… next safest is humans that break the rules, but in a context aware situation (IE everyone going 70 in a 55, is safer than 1 car going 55 and all other cars going 70).
Real danger though is if the AI doesn’t make good judgement calls when doing so. IE rather than deciding based on how fast other cars are going, it’s primary determination is whether the user says they are in a hurry, leading it to sometimes be the one car going 55, but if the person is in a hurry it may be the only car going 70 on a road everyone else is going 55.
yeah fully second this… The evidence for it are vague at best… and to quintuple it up… The dude apparently lives on live stream, just looking at his streaming stats it looks like he’s literally streaming 4-8 hours every single day, with his dog coming up in the background. Someone wants to say he’s abusing that dog because they found one 5 second clip of one event that seems hypothetically questionable, that’s kind of crazy to me. I can’t think of a person who’s interactions with his dog are more regularly visible to the public then him, and one incident of the dog yelping for half a second before laying down comfortably on a dog bed… being used as evidence that he’s a horrific animal abuser, seems like such an extreme stretch.
as even if we gave the critics 100% trust, and even if we somehow conclude that it is in fact a shock collar, and we were to conclude that he used it this time in this situation… clearly he uses it pretty damn sparingly when over half of his waking hours around his dog, are visible for the whole world to watch.
well do you want something that has an 80% chance of finding it in 2 seconds… or something that has a 99% chance of finding it in 38 hours? (and yeah, duh the obviously rational thing to do would be to try one or 2 layers of the quick methods, say “did this find it or do you want me to look deeper”.
MTG is just legitimately stupid and believes all the crazy stupid shit her party and crazy right wing conspiracy theorists have said. Problem being since she actually believes these things, she can’t turn on a dime like the rest of her party and go from “release the files” to “nothing to see here trust the government”, like the shills did.
and she’s actually anti semetic, so she can’t actually hold the half and half antisemetic viewpoint of “jews control the media and are plotting in a global cabal to wreck the world”, “except for those jews that happen to be in Isreal and are dropping bombs on women and children, and picking fights with every other country near them… those are the only good jews”.
Honestly as a representative in congress. I think stupid is actually less dangerous than intentionally evil like the majority of the republican party (at least for representatives, for voters obviously stupid and duped just sets them up to vote for the actually evil ones)
where I gotta disagree with you on their framing.
For starters, it’s talking evolution. A specific biological process about inherited genes.
“How did this happen? Evolution does not make moral judgments. Evolution does not necessarily reward that which is good or beautiful. It simply rewards those who reproduce the most.”
Next point is, it’s showing IQ scores. Fans of IQ scores, generally also believe in the studies that imply they are innate, heritable traits.
Sorry but am I completely missing something, is there one part in this intro that even once implies intelligence as, cultural, education, or really says anything other than “smart people have smart kids, if they have them”, “dumb people have dumb kids”.
Again I hold to the gist, it’s a comedy, not meant to be perfectly clear scientific thesis, but the speach from the narrator, is almost always that. even with the ending of “they gave birth to three children, the 3 smartest kids in the world”. “his vice president Frido took 8 wives and had 32 kids, the dumbest kids to ever walk the earth”.
The core concept of it, effectively it is eugenics, IQ etc…
The real part of it is, it’s not eugenics, it’s education that’s hitting the spiral. Poorly educated people, keep getting convinced to make education less accessible and worse, leading to more poorly educated people, that vote harder on it, ad infinium.
Bottom line, religion and power structures have found education as their target to limit, and have been for decades.
I do agree the opening of idiocracy really presented some extreme “eugenics” vibes to it. Which also is kind of weird because the end of if basically presented the opposite. Where not sure in his mediocre knowledge starts pushing for education improvements, improving the culture etc… Not sure’s conclusion at the end was basically that everyone is ignorant not dumb, and society could gradually be fixed by actually trying.
anyone know what the claim is to even count as defamation?. That to me seems like what should be the crux.
IE if the claim was “X’s voice clearly shows he’s dying of cancer.” I could see that as defamation. On the other hand “X is summoning demons” that clearly would be fan-fiction.
Ah damn, my arguement must have completely come apart, because that’s absolutely a scottsman, and he is falling for the marketing. I don’t think there’s any comeback for that.
Yeah, I think scottsman are the ones that are actually immune to marketing.
While I agree with the fuck cars concept on a hundred fronts. Our dependency on them is certainly something that can be reduced.
They are still pretty far from equivelant.
IE without a major total rebuild of my city, adding public transfer infrastructure etc… cars are necessary for me to go to the grocery stores etc… Bottom line 500 things need to be done before they start restricting cars.
meanwhile guns, serve pretty much no practical use in civilized society except, potentially protect yourself from someone with a gun.
Cases where you want something googled quickly to get an answer, and it’s low consequence when the answer is wrong.
IE, say a bar arguement over whether that guy was in that movie. Or you need a customer service agent, but don’t actually care about your customers and don’t want to pay someone, or your coding a feature for windows.
Or more importantly do the specific opposite of that. Vote 3rd parties, fight in the primaries in the local, state, and important levels everywhere you can.
Don’t throw your vote away on candidate of which your vote is literally less than one millionth of the way they need to get.
It’s OK the secretary of education was only promoting steak sauce in the classrooms.
Yeah on the whole my thoughts are… it’s probably not the utopia people want it to be… but I think it’s clear… what we have right now is pretty undeniably horrific. The whole concept of a single individual literally having more than millions of people put together, while billions are sweating whether they will keep basic necesities is so insane to me.
have to agree on that, there’s the variation, it’s faster if you take it’s code verbatim, run it, and debug where there’s obvious problems… but then you are vulnerable to unobvious problems, when a hacky way of doing it is weak to certain edge cases… and no real way to do it.
Reading it’s code, understanding it, finding the problems from the core, sounds as time consuming as writing the code.
I think the better question is, why can’t wireless charging be more universal. We had decades of 500 different competing phone chargers. (as the famous XKCD comic https://xkcd.com/927/ ) mocks.
yet we don’t seem to be getting anywhere near the idea of a universal wireless charge system.
What do you expect… they replaced their investigative journalists with AI just days before this article came out.
(source, I asked chatgpt to research before doing this comment).