I have to assume that's what it was trained on...

Thanks for the explainer, that last point is really great actually and I'm surprised that Amazon/Google etc are pushing for Matter if the data isn't sent to the internet.

I love the notion that even Twitter users had too much empathy and the platform wasn't getting Nazified fast enough on it's own so they had to program a robot to go around and spread propaganda.

Not sure if you are looking for blogs but I this guy is a good writer: https://rys.io/en/index.html

I am just getting started on this journey but zigbee seems great and I like that it works fine even if the wifi goes down. I'm not sure what the drawbacks are or the benefits of Matter.

Hilarious that that account's made a single comment pushing back on classic lemmy hysteria/paranoia and then apparently left the platform.

Sure, but not by definition. Posting slop and spam is different than shitposting. This post is just slop.

"Shitposting" describes the act, not the content. Posting content "that took little to no effort" to produce is just spam. It doesn't matter if a human made it or not.

I don't like having to defend the Times, but the rumor is that they rushed this story out before Christopher Rufo could break the news (with what would almost certainly be a right-wing spin).

I doubt the Times would ever admit to publishing a story with the goal of hindering the formation of a right-wing narrative but in this case if they did, it might have been the right call as opposed to waiting for Rufo and publishing a "fact check" of his reporting later.

I think quote posts are undesirable for the reasons you mentioned but I have to accept that it will be huge for adoption, and the flip side (promoting others work in a positive light) is also going to be really great.

You are the OP, you literally removed someone's tweet from it's original context (or reposted without fact checking) and presented it here with an entirely different, false context. The fact that it's being misinterpreted is 100% on you for presenting it inaccurately, not the guy who's words you misrepresented.

I actually upvoted this before deciding to fact check which took me no more than ten seconds.

It is: https://xcancel.com/packyM/status/1942246284015858012#m

This guy made a joke and a bunch of Twitter users took it seriously. Context.

Oh yeah absolutely, but I also think the goal of the AI companies is not to actually create a functioning AI that could "do a job 20% as good as a human, but 90% cheaper", but to sell fancy software, whether it works or not, and leave the smaller companies holding the bag after they lay off their workforce.

Right? It actually makes me feel insane that the topic of "humans working less" is never in the selling points of these products.

Honestly I suspect that rather than some nefarious capitalist plot to enslave humanity, it is just more evidence that the software can't actually do what the people selling it to big corporations claim it can do.

This bit at the end, wow:

Gartner still expects that by 2028 about 15 percent of daily work decisions will be made autonomously by AI agents, up from 0 percent last year.

Agentic AI is wrong 70% of the time, but even assuming a human employee is barely correct most of the time and wrong 49% of the time, is it really still more efficient to replace them?

Very nice (and sad)

I like where your head's at, but Mastodon's system of verification seems much easier to me and doesn't rely on a third party.