The best one I've used for coding is the InelliJ AI. Idk how they trained that sucker but it's pretty good at ripping through boiler plate code and structuring new files / methods based off how your project is already setup. It still has those little hallucinations especially when you ask it to figure out more niche tasks. But It's really increased my productivity. Especially when getting a new repo setup. (I work with micro services)
Just off the top of my head those are a few. And that's with people holding the line and continuing to use these symbols without hate. We don't need more people defending their claims.
The only person in this thread who seems intent on pepe being about hate speech is you. I've been asked in some formal settings to avoid using the OK hand sign in case it sends the wrong message. I've been advised by tattoo artists to avoid Nordic symbols despite the fact that I'm of Scandinavian descent. You're enabling the worst kind of people to decide what symbols mean in our culture. Why?
Amazon (AMZN.O) is planning a major revamp of its decade-old money-losing Alexa service to include a conversational generative AI with two tiers of service and has considered a monthly fee of around $5 to access the superior version, according to people with direct knowledge of the company's plans.
People are nostalgic the world over, not just in America. So all of the undertones of political issues that you're layering on here isn't inherent to the human feeling of nostalgia. Now The Dukes of Hazzard is problematic for a great many reasons as this post highlights. So it's totally fair to call that out. But it's also totally fair to remember being a kid and liking a show where guys break the rules with fast cars. It doesn't mean that he's a bigot that wants to drag us all back to the '70s.
I say, as long as you're self aware and this feeling in nostalgia doesn't push you in the direction of Trump or Andrew Tate, then go for it.
As soon as Apple announced its plans to inject generative AI into the iPhone, it was as good as official: The technology is now all but unavoidable. Large language models will soon lurk on most of the world’s smartphones, generating images and text in messaging and email apps. AI has already colonized web search, appearing in...
They should go ahead and be against Photoshop and, well, computers all together while they're at it. In fact spray paint is cheating too. You know how long it takes to make a proper brush stroke? No skill numpties just pressing a button; they don't know what real art is!
Maybe other artists should do that too. Art isn't built from nothing but the sheer magical creativity of the artist. If that were true we'd have Sistine cave paintings instead of the finger painting we currently have in prehistoric caves. Inspiration, is in fact, a thing.
Yeah and what is the first thing they teach you in art school? History. From day one you're studying the works of other artists and its implications. How they managed to make an impact on the viewers and how it inspires you. Then we produce output that's judged by our teachers on a scale and we use that as weighted training data.
Yeah, agreed. The dream of AI is it understanding what you want and offering it, or even doing it for you. But this inherently requires a computer system to understand everything about what you want. Perfect for big tech companies that are hungry for your advertising data. This is why we need more open source model projects!
We evolved to have self preservation and the desire for security. We naturally don't want to be under the thumb of someone in control of our food and safety. That's why we question authority. What makes you think A.I. will have any of that, unless someone explicitly gives it to them?
It's wild to me that I hear so many people bemoan the idea of having to work under someone's thumb, but when we finally invent automation everyone clings to their jobs. I mean, I understand. What comes next is unsure and likely to be painful. But when it's over I can't imagine there will be a place left for capitalism.
Totally agree that there's a lot of what people are assuming about AI that's from pop culture. I think consolidating resources will for sure be an issue. But unless everyone who doesn't have resources dies off there's going to be an unprecedented level of people with nothing of value to offer in exchange for the power to live (currently: money). There then has to be an extermination of those people (read: 90% of humanity) or a revolution that offers them some facsimile of a universal basic income.
Though, I think there's a dark 3rd option where tech companies start downplaying AI and secretly use it to push 90% of people into extreme poverty for their gain without pushing them past the point of revolution.
But as far as AI motivation, I think their learning can ingrain certain systemic behaviors, like racist undertones. But the same way I don't become genocidal after reading too much WWII history, knowledge of something doesn't create motivation. I think one of the things that annoys people about AI is how unopinionated they are. So motivation WILL be programmed in eventually, but this will take effort and direction. I think accidentally creating a genocidal AI is another pop culture based concept. Though possible if done by bad actors.
We may be at an "agree to disagree" point here. But I don't think that the will to live is inherent to life. I think it's inherent to evolved life. There are plenty of things that live that have a weak to no sense of self preservation. We would call this a mental disability like suicidality or an evolutionary maladaptation. But these are inherently weeded out and erased from the gene pool. You think about life wanting to live because that's what evolution has selected for so far.
Take someone that has grown up in our world learning from our history and having even the genetics produced by our evolution. There are people that are suicidal, people that are hedonistic or adrenaline seeking to the point of fatal danger, and people that live to serve even to the point of willingness to commit suicide if their masters ask it of them. Checkout Seppuku. Are these people not alive? Are soldiers not alive? Living means a great many different things to a great many beings. Mostly they have in common the desire to live. But that's by no means a prerequisite, or even a result of life. Many consider some purpose or meaning in their life more important than life itself. And that's with evolution constantly putting us back on track. If anything, the safety rails of modern society have made people more prone to stray from the desire to live for life's sake.
Your claim is that life demands the desire to live. I think ignoring the everyday cases where that's not true gives your critical thinking a bad foundation. I also provided many other examples. Every person is built on the backs of thousands of people. My brain was developed by thousands of ancestors and filled with the knowledge of millions of other humans. Yet I'm capable of not fearing death. But that aside, an artificial consciousness will be a whole new ballgame. I don't think we should assume the way we are is the way it is. That any consciousness will think the same.
I think the point being made here is that many people clearly enjoy what Starbucks offers. So, saying they suck is preaching to the choir. The only people listening to that are the people you aren't trying to convince. If you want an impact, suggest an alternative that will make those people happy. To do that, start with an understanding of the value Starbucks brings them. Failing that, you are just signaling that your thinking isn't for them. They'll just ignore you and continue to happily give Starbucks their money.
Yeah, put another way, make something controversial and people will pick sides and stop their thinking then and there. If anyone, including themselves, thinks "Starbucks sucks" then they're the enemy and should be disproven.
I'd argue there's a great solution. Respect the people that go to Starbucks and their opinion. Understand it. And then, from a place of compassion and understanding see how you can help them. People respond a lot better to that. But I'll admit that in this climate everyone is making things an us vs them controversy. So it'll be hard when others are trying to create that divide and you are trying to bridge it.
Yeah! That's precisely what I mean. Scooters is making an impact because they understand what people want and are providing a reasonable alternative that makes those kinds of people happy. They're not just saying: Starbucks is bad, don't go there.
Whoa, it's like because you fully understood their position rather than analyzing it from a hostile point of view, you're capable of basic compassion and humility for the incredibly painful situation that all the people of the middle east face everyday.
But seriously, it's pretty refreshing to hear someone understand rather than just try and push a narrative and justify their take.
Could not have said it better. The whole reason contemporary programs haven't been able to adapt to the ambiguity of real world situations is because they require rigidly defined parameters to function. LLMs and AI make assumptions and act on shaky info - That's the whole point. If people waited for complete understanding of every circumstance and topic, we'd constantly be trapped in indecision. Without the ability to test their assumptions in the real world, LLMs will be like children.
Seems like there are a lot of half baked ideas online about AI that seem to come from assumptions based on some sci-fi ideal or something. People are shocked that an artificial intelligence gets things wrong when they themselves have probably made a handful of incorrect assumptions today. This Tom Scott talk is a great explanation of how truth can never be programmed into anything. And will never really be obtainable to humanity in the foreseeable future.
Many people's entire thought process is an internal monologue. You think that voice is magic? It takes input and generates a conceptual internal dialogue based on what it's previously experienced (training data for long term, context for short term). What do you mean when you say you understand something? What is the mechanism that your brain undergoes that's defined as understanding?
Because for me it's an internal conversation that asserts an assumption based on previous data and then attacks it with the next most probable counter argument systematically until what I consider a "good idea" emerges that is reasonably vetted. Then I test it in the real world by enacting the scientific process. The results are added to my long term memory (training data).
Totally get where you're coming from. But you can enjoy the game and dislike the way they marketed and released it. 90% of life isn't a zero-sum game. Despite what the internet would have you believe.
The whole game has an amazing story, that actually hooks the player's emotions. It's fantastic. It's so refreshing after so many games with lazy writing or voice acting. I also played shortly after release, only experiencing 2 major bugs in my playthrough. I know others had it worse, but it was actually refreshing on that front too.
What I think is astonishing to some people lately about Cyberpunk, is that they got most of their information from the popular channels on the internet. Despite its name, these channels (reddit r/all, Twitter, etc) are a (loud) minority of the actual opinions.
Pretty much every one I talked to IRL about Cyberpunk was aware of the controversy, but had a much more nuanced opinion than I was seeing online. Many of them enjoyed it and weren't really experiencing that many bugs (myself included). But this wasn't an "allowed" opinion online. Anyone who said the game was enjoyable or they didn't personally experience many bugs were attacked for being a CDPR fanboy (myself included) and down voted.
Best take in this thread by a long shot. I'd like to add that there's nothing wrong with a little thought experiment to illicit a point. But the internet has become such an inhospitable place to any kind of discussion requiring nuance and patience.
This is a great look into the mindset of someone who's been through SA. Thanks for sharing.
The point I think a lot of men are trying to make is that: In the same way that somebody who commits SA may have been abused themselves, women who are prejudiced against men create a new victim. Treating a harmless man as worse than a dangerous animal is an experience that most every man goes through and that sucks.
I can understand and sympathize with your position. But it doesn't absolve you of your behavior. Just like someone who commits SA isn't off the hook because they were beaten as a child and that screwed them up. I feel for someone who was abused growing up, but they don't get to throw up their hands and say it's not their fault they victimize others. Compassion is crucial, but at the end of the day, everyone is responsible for their own actions.
You seem incredibly well adjusted for what you've been through and clearly you've learned a lot from your life experience. Thanks for laying all that out. It was very insightful. I think we agree on 99% of this. So at the risk of splitting hairs, I'm going to put a magnifying glass on that last 1%.
I think fear absolutely victimizes people. I've seen xenophobia and homophobia do plenty of damage. Men are far from a disenfranchised minority and I think the issue of women's safety is much more pressing than men being treated unfairly in some situations. But it still shouldn't happen.
You're right that in a way it's the fault of the dangerous men who abuse women. But in a way, hypothetically, it's really the fault of their parents who sexually assaulted them. But in a way it's the fault of their parents genetics that made them mentally unstable, etc, etc all the way back to the first multicellular organism. This thinking, however true, isn't very useful. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
We agree fear is not an excuse for misandry. I don't think it's unreasonable for women to fear men after having a traumatic experience. However I can still point out the problem here. I think a good example is the trolley problem. If you pull the lever to only kill one person instead of six, I can both: agree with your decision but also point out that you killed someone. You can argue that's insensitive to your difficult dilemma, but I think it's worse to pretend like someone isn't getting hurt. That one person who died still was a life with people who will mourn them.
I think what's irking men about this whole bear thing is not that the result is not what they want or even what they expect. It's that a huge chunk of people seem to not even see it as a problem that most men are being judged for something they have nothing to do with.
Well you are voting with your wallet, the only problem is you've been out voted. Honda makes good automotives and part of the "price" now is people giving them their data. People just don't understand/care enough to not want to buy a Honda. If this were really a big deal to people it would open a place in the market for new automotive companies like Rivian, Lucid, or Polestar to gain massive ground by not doing this.
This is an education issue. We need to inform people about the dangers of a lack of data privacy. If they still don't care, then so be it.
I agree that people can't learn everything about every market. But what people care to learn about and pay attention to counts for something.
Imagine your friends are trying to decide on a place to eat. You suggest a very healthy restaurant where all the food is listed with ingredients and their source farms. But then someone says, "Eh, I wanna save money. Let's do Taco Bell." You explain that that's an objectively worse decision. That food health is really important. That in the long run, eating unhealthy actually costs more in medical bills. But they decided to go to Taco Bell.
Putting your foot down and demanding the healthy option might objectively be the "right" choice. But in reality, they'll just get Taco Bell on their own time and resent you for taking their choice away. People have to be presented with the information and decide for themselves or they'll just resent the institution enforcing the choice.
My analogy makes it clearer to highlight a point. But you're right that Honda wouldn't shut down if these regulations are passed. But It could be that the companies they're partnering with are giving them a cheaper rate on infotainment systems for a cut of the data that's collected. If we made Honda produce two Civics. One that steals your data and one that is just $200 more expensive, then we fully educate people on why the more expensive version is better. And then they STILL chose the cheap data miner. Then taking that option away with regulation is wrong. I might not agree with consumers here. But the reality is that they might just not agree with us about what's important. Enforcing a choice because we "know better" isn't right.
If the majority of people come together to push a regulation because it's something we don't even want to consider when purchasing electronics, then great. I'm just not sure that's the case. And I think we get into trouble jumping to regulation on every issue because often what people say they want, isn't really what they want.
Instagram is profiting from several ads that invite people to create nonconsensual nude images with AI image generation apps, once again showing that some of the most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet, but are actively promoted to users by social media companies unable or...
Totally get your frustration, but people have been imagining, drawing, and photoshopping people naked since forever. To me the problem is if they try and pass it off as real. If someone can draw photorealistic pieces and drew someone naked, we wouldn't have the same reaction, right?
Well that's exactly the point from my perspective. It's really shitty here in the stage of technology where people are falling victim to this. So I really understand people's knee jerk reaction to throw on the brakes. But then we'll stay here where women are being harassed and bullied with this kind of technology. The only paths forward, theoretically, are to remove it all together or to make it ubiquitous background noise. Removing it all together, in my opinion, is practically impossible.
So my point is that a picture from an unverified source can never be taken as truth. But we're in a weird place technologically, where unfortunately it is. I think we're finally reaching a point where we can break free of that. If someone sends me a nude with my face on it like, "Is this you?!!". I'll send them one back with their face like, "Is tHiS YoU?!??!".
We'll be in a place where we as a society cannot function taking everything we see on the internet as truth. Not only does this potentially solve the AI nude problem, It can solve the actual nude leaks / revenge porn, other forms of cyberbullying, and mass distribution of misinformation as a whole. The internet hasn't been a reliable source of information since its inception. The problem is, up until now, its been just plausible enough that the gullible fall into believing it.
Stephen King: My Books Were Used to Train AI::One prominent author responds to the revelation that his writing is being used to coach artificial intelligence.
I would argue we do have a legal precedent for this sort of thing. Companies hire creatives all the time and ask them to do things in the style of other creatives. You can't copyright a style. You don't own what you inspire.
But that is what's happening in the minds of creatives. Reading a book and taking inspiration is functionally the same mechanism that an LLM uses to learn. They read Stephen King, they copy some part of the style. Potentially very closely and for a corporation's gain if that's what's asked of them.
Every learning material a company or university has ever used has been used to train an LLM. Us.
Okay I'm being a bit facetious here. I know people and chat GPT aren't equivalent. But the gap is closing. Maybe LLMs will never bridge the gap, but something will. I hesitate to write into law now that any work can never be ingested or emulated by another intelligent entity. While the difference between a machine and a human are clear to you now, one day they won't be.
The longer we hold onto the idea that our brains are somehow magically different from the way computers (are) will learn to think, the harder we'll get blindsided by reality when they're indistinguishable from us.
I agree AGIs aren't going to happen soon. But it sounds like we agree they WILL happen. LLMs do have one important thing in common with humans, their output is transformative based on what they learn.
I think what you take issue with is the scale. People wouldn't care if this was something that existed on one computer somewhere. Where someone could type, "Write me a spooky story about Top Ramen in the style of Stephen King". It's that anyone can get a story in Stephen Kings style when all OpenAI had to do is buy a couple digital copies of Cujo. However, no one is upset that James Cameron bought one ticket to Pocahontas and thought, "What if that were on another planet?". But 400 million people saw that movie.
People want to protect creatives buy casting a net over machines saying they can't use the works of artists, even when transforming them, without payment to the original creator. While that sounds like it makes sense now, what happens when the distinction between human and machine disappears? That net will be around us too. Corporations will just use this to empower their copyright rule even further.
Stephen King was largely inspired by Ray Bradbury and H.P. Lovecraft. I doubt he paid them beyond the original price of a couple books.
BTW thanks for the thought provoking conversation. None of my friends care about this stuff 😅
"Working with Gen AI" by Dandytoon
Cross posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/35627632
It's called attaining divinity ( sh.itjust.works )
Amazon Mulls $5 to $10 monthly price tag for unprofitable Alexa service, AI revamp ( www.reuters.com )
Amazon (AMZN.O) is planning a major revamp of its decade-old money-losing Alexa service to include a conversational generative AI with two tiers of service and has considered a monthly fee of around $5 to access the superior version, according to people with direct knowledge of the company's plans.
And it just seemed like any other show. ( lemmy.world )
'LLM-free' is the new '100% organic' - Creators Are Fighting AI Anxiety With an ‘LLM-Free’ Movement ( www.theatlantic.com )
As soon as Apple announced its plans to inject generative AI into the iPhone, it was as good as official: The technology is now all but unavoidable. Large language models will soon lurk on most of the world’s smartphones, generating images and text in messaging and email apps. AI has already colonized web search, appearing in...
what's the latest image in your download folder?
that you're willing to share obviously
Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model ( www.anthropic.com )
I often see a lot of people with outdated understanding of modern LLMs....
New Windows AI feature records everything you’ve done on your PC ( arstechnica.com )
Students Show Up to Graduation, Find Commencement Speaker Is an AI Robot ( futurism.com )
Big Tech to EU: "Drop Dead" ( www.eff.org )
Israel troops continue posting abuse footage despite pledge to act ( www.bbc.com )
The BBC has analysed 45 photos and videos, which include those of detainees draped in Israeli flags....
We have to stop ignoring AI’s hallucination problem ( www.theverge.com )
JK Rowling slammed for asking if she can be Black if she likes “Motown & fancy myself in cornrows” ( www.lgbtqnation.com )
Cyberpunk 2077 director thanks fans as the game hits a 95% positive review rating on Steam ( www.eurogamer.net )
A bit late ( lemmy.blahaj.zone )
"b-but bears are actually dangerous!" Shut the hell up.
How to opt out of the privacy nightmare that comes with new Hondas ( sherwood.news )
YouTube's war against third party apps is just as ridiculous as its war on adblockers ( www.androidpolice.com )
Instagram Advertises Nonconsensual AI Nude Apps ( www.404media.co )
Instagram is profiting from several ads that invite people to create nonconsensual nude images with AI image generation apps, once again showing that some of the most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet, but are actively promoted to users by social media companies unable or...
Stephen King: My Books Were Used to Train AI ( www.theatlantic.com )
Stephen King: My Books Were Used to Train AI::One prominent author responds to the revelation that his writing is being used to coach artificial intelligence.