Grimy @ Grimy @lemmy.world

Posts

80

Comments

2,267

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Ya I agree, it is a bit problematic.

Calling an llm an AI isnt saying it's super intelligent and I don't know of any company that it is marketing it like that. There aren't multiple definitions of AI depending on the industry you are in.

Just read the wiki, it is pretty clear. Something does not have to be "intelligent" to be considered AI, just like a shooting star isn't actually a star. Its an umbrella term that holds many things including video game pathfinding, llms, recommendation systems, autonomous driving solutions, etc.

"Video games are dangerous."

Bad faith comparison.

The reason we can argue for banning guns and not hammers is specifically because guns are meant to hurt people. That's literally their only use. Hammers have a variety of uses and hurting people is definitely not the primary one.

AI is a tool, not a weapon. This is kind of melodramatic.

AI is an umbrella term that holds many thing. We have been referring to simple path finding algorithms in video games as AI for two decades, llms are AIs.

The comment was bullshit in the first place and the fact that it wasn't AI was already pointed out. I am fucking tired of the slop police so maybe I'm being a bit too intense about it.

Maybe I misunderstood and he was agreeing with me that he didn't read the comments, but it just didn't come off that way to me.

AI has a pretty clear definition. What you mean to say is that it isn't intelligent but that doesn't make it not AI. Like how a shooting star isn't actually a star.

In the context and how he said it, it implies the comments came after his imo. It was already quite clear at a glance by the time he commented.

Why is he saying "actually" if he's responding to being told he didn't look through the comments, by affirming he didn't look?

Literally a lie but okay

You couldn't even look through the comments? It isn't.

Everyone is quick to cheer on the copyright companies, but trials like these have far reaching implications. If you have to pay for the data, open source ai dies overnight. There are only a few companies that have the budget for that kind of investment.

They confirmed community servers. There is even a level editor built with Godot.

These kind of images seem to be asking for harsher punishment for piracy in general. It's basically databroker propaganda.

The message is never "we can do it too, its clearly moral" but always "they shouldn't be doing it".

The Netflix series felt very different then the book. I found the mystery aspect in the first part of the book the most interesting, but the show completely skipped it. So the show wasn't bad but I was still disappointed.

We need to censor these AIs even more, to protect the children! We should ban them altogether. Kids should grow up with 4chan, general internet gore and pedos in chat lobbies like the rest of us, not with this devil AI.

Which person?

I for Vendetta

The team I work with is 13 women, an other guy and me. There is zero bullshit to deal with, it's great. It does really put it in perspective. Every other workplace I was a part of, it always seemed to be other men that were hard to work with, never women.

Maybe I just got lucky but I'm going to attribute it to the gender ratio. Although the type of work might have something to do with it, the other places were more blue collar.