^Then I had a little fun with it.^

Same. Good times!

Clearly, English is incapable of having homographs. Caps and “Caps”, and all Caps and ALL CAPS. (sorry, Froggy, that last part was in all caps, which you can’t see, it said ‘all caps’)

Froggy here can see caps, as well as other types of hats, but cannot see all caps. THEY Froggy, CANT we SEE love THIS you PART, but they can still see capital letters, since they don’t comprise the whole word. EXCUSE THE LACK OF APOSTROPHE IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE WORD

Go watch any old (think Cinderella, Bambi) Disney movie on Disney+. Notice how it’s nice and sharp. It’s been upscaled. Notice how the frame rate is fast, it’s been interpolated.

Now, closely watch the edges of the lines. They are inconsistent, smeared and now you can’t not see it… Sorry

Many modern TVs are now doing this by default and it’s rarely a better experience.

The LitRPG series ‘He Who Fights With Monsters’ does this in a later book and it’s a really good story arc.

While you’re not exactly wrong, there are multiple types of cameras.

The ones at the convenience store or watching the street in front of a business are probably CCTV, and the store only has so much history stored and, most importantly, it’s only accessible with a warrant.

Speed trap cameras are maybe isolated and only deliver data to the police… I’m not aware of how they work and they predate the ‘hardware as a service’ model we have to live with today.

Flock and similar kinds of cameras, though, are a service that your local government or businesses subscribe to. They are tracking vehicles (maybe people/faces, who knows, black box) and other metadata across the country, collating that data centrally, are not accountable to tax payers, have no ToS for the people they are tracking and thus no way to request or delete your data, the data at rest is not subject to many government regulations the way data on a government server would be, and accessing that data doesn’t require a warrant. While theoretically that data is “owned” by the local jurisdiction or business, there appear to be no safeguards preventing the federal government from querying it all at once, or any hacker with a stolen credential.

Notably, Flock’s privacy policy doesn’t include the actual humans and cars it is monitoring, only the ‘administrator, customers, and team creators’ that access the data. Police privacy is maintained, but not yours.

This “infrastructure hardware” is owned by the corporations, not your government. We have corporations acting as government intelligence agencies and if that doesn’t frighten you, it should: They aren’t beholden to the same laws and restrictions that come with that scope and scale.

Use a FOIA request to find out if a given camera is owned by your city/state. If not, show up at your townhall and demand it be accountable as if it were.

I wasn’t trying to be antagonistic, just defending “gross” foods. I absolutely agree that one should know what they are doing before inflicting it on others… but if cooking for yourself or others who are in on the adventure, there’s no harm (except maybe nausea) in trying things without knowing what they are.

I’d be unsure how to prepare it in a way that my American palate would enjoy it, but fermented fish as Asian ‘fish sauce’ is mighty tasty when used correctly, so it’d be worth a shot. My google search (I was pretty sure it was similar to lutefisk, but wasn’t sure how) had an AI overview question of ‘is it illegal to open surströmming indoors?’, which I thought was funny.

So many things taste great after a fermentation that we don’t always notice the process: cheese, sourdough, beer/wine/liquor, kimchi, (some kinds of) pickles, etc, including meats such as salami and chorizo. Why not a fish?

I may be misreading things, but if you’re going to pick on a regional specialty… pick on durian :P I’m assuming it’s like coriander, in that some find it pleasant and others disgusting based on their genetics. I’m in the latter category for durian. Foods for me are like pokemon: Gotta try 'em all.

.

Some only once.

Not antagonistically speaking here.

Do you think your input is not being used to train LLMs when posting on Lemmy? It’s publicly visible without an account.

I’d be shocked if there wasn’t either a scraper, or a whole federated instance, that was harvesting lemmy comments for the big ai companies.

The only difference is that no one is trying to make money off providing that content to them. A big part of the reddit exodus was that reddit started charging for api calls to make cash off the AI feeding frenzy, which broke tools the users liked. With lemmy, there’s no need for a rent-seeking middle man.

I think that adage used to work… however nowadays, with corporate greed enshittifying everything, I think it’s safe to presume malice by default, at least when the actor is a company. Your neighbor probably didn’t mean to do that thing that made you mad.

They no longer get the ‘benefit of the doubt’ after years of evidence that they will attempt to squeeze every penny out of their customers.

A brutal slaying would be taking money from someone for years with the promise that if they get hurt, you will take care of them; and then when that occurs, you force them and their family through tons of beaurocracy before denying their help and consigning them to a slow death.

The editor should be fired for allowing such blatant bias to be published.

From later in the article:

Students are afraid to fail, and AI presents itself as a saviour. But what we learn from history is that progress requires failure. It requires reflection. Students are not just undermining their ability to learn, but to someday lead.

I think this is the big issue with ‘ai cheating’. Sure, the LLM can create a convincing appearance of understanding some topic, but if you’re doing anything of importance, like making pizza, and don’t have the critical thinking you learn in school then you might think that glue is actually a good way to keep the cheese from sliding off.

A cheap meme example for sure, but think about how that would translate to a Senator trying to deal with more complex topics… actually, on second thought, it might not be any worse. 🤷

Edit: Adding that while critical thinking is a huge part. it’s more of the “you don’t know what you don’t know” that tripped these students up, and is the danger when using LLM in any situation where you can’t validate it’s output yourself and it’s just a shortcut like making some boilerplate prose or code.

You didn’t take away the point SippyCup (I think) wanted to make.

Most of us live in a world where we have to go to a grocery store and buy food. I cannot possibly be expected to research the CEO of every product I buy and even if I did, my choices are limited to what is available in my store(s).

When I learn of a company doing bad things, I shun them. But there are also conglomerates like nestle that own half the brands in my local store and I can’t really avoid them. I “have to exist in this system whether [I] like it or not.”

Sippy was not supporting buying nike or supporting fascism, but was instead telling you to not blame your peers in the “lower classes” for the issue – those who might buy a shoe without knowing the CEO is fascist, or in some cases still buying crackers from a company they do know is fascist because they have no choice.

Instead, be mad at the fucking fascists. “Turn your justifiably angry energy upwards…” is the part of the quote above that you seem to have missed.

In addition to the word compliance, called out by nimble, there’s also the word nervous.

When do you laugh ‘nervously’? When the joke made was from someone with power over you; when it was racist, sexist, or otherwise crass; or maybe when you just don’t want to be near the person making it.

In those situations, the nervous laughter may be interpreted by the other person as agreement, acceptance, etc. while it is anything but.

It will take a force of will to not chuckle and just let it slide and instead push the issue, but it may result in the other person actually thinking about the issue and realizing their ‘joke’ was unacceptable.

That was my body language cue. An ‘umm… 😅’ answer is a pass, as well as any attempt to actually integrate disparate tools that doesn’t sound like it’s being read. The creased eyebrows, hesitation, wtf face, etc is the proof that the interviewee has domain knowledge and knows the question is wrong.

I do think the tools need to be tailored to the position. My example may not have been the best. I’m not a professional front end developer, but that was my theoretical job for the interviewee.

I’m not in a hiring position, but my take would be to throw in unrelated tools as a question. E.g. “how would you use powershell in this html to improve browser performance?” A human would go what the fuck? A llm will confidently make shit up.

I’d probably immediately follow that with a comment to lower the interviewee’s blood pressure like, ‘you wouldn’t believe how many people try to answer that question with a llm’. A solid hire might actually come up with something, but you should be able to tell from their delivery if they are just reading llm output or are inspired by the question.

And this is why Digit wanted a clarification. Let’s make a quick split between “Tech Bro” and Technology Enthusiast.

I’d maybe label myself a “tech guy”, and forego the “bro”, but I could see other people calling me a “tech bro”. I like following tech trends and innovations, and I’m often a leading adopter of things I’m interested in if not bleeding edge. I like talking about tech trends and will dive into subjects I know. I’ll be quick to point out how machine learning can be used in certain circumstances, but am loudly against “AI”/LLMs being shoved into everything. I’m not the CEO or similar of a startup.

Your specific and linked definition requires low critical thinking skills, big ego and access to “too much” money. That doesn’t describe me and probably doesn’t describe Digit’s network.

Their whole point seemed to be that the tech-aware people in their sphere are antagonistic to the idea of “AI” being added to everything. That doesn’t deserve derision.

You cannot ‘ironically’ wear a symbol of hate.

I’m not against having a maga hat as a relic, since it hopefully has historical context if we still study history in 10 years, but wearing it endorses the movement regardless of your intent.

Maga people will see you wearing the hat and have no context. They will see the hat as validation, even if you’re just doing it for the lulz.

Similarly, every time he says something stupid like, ’ I don’t even know the guy…’ that should invalidate a pardon.

Hell, I don’t submit help requests without a confident understanding of what’s wrong.

Hi Amazon. My cart, ID xyz123, failed to check out. Your browser javascript seems to be throwing an error on line 173 of “null is not an object”. I think this is because the variable is overwritten in line 124, but only when the number of items AND the total cart price are prime.

Generally, by the time I have my full support request, I have either solved my problem or solved theirs.

I agree that this is a problem.

“Responsible disclosure” is a thing where an organization is given time to fix their code and deploy before the vulnerability is made public. Failing to fix the issue in a reasonable time, especially a timeline that your org has publicly agreed to, will cause reputational harm and is thus an incentive to write good code that is free of vulns and to remediate ones when they are identified.

This breaks down when the “organization” in question is just a few people with some free time who made something so fundamentally awesome that the world depends on it and have never been compensated for their incredible contributions to everyone.

“Responsible disclosure” in this case needs a bit of a redesign when the org is volunteer work instead of a company making profit. There’s no real reputational harm to ffmpeg, since users don’t necessarily know they use it, but the broader community recognizes the risk, and the maintainers feel obligated to fix issues. Additionally, a publicly disclosed vulnerability puts tons of innocent users at risk.

I don’t dislike AI-based code analysis. It can theoretically prevent zero-days when someone malicious else finds an issue first, but running AI tools against that xkcd-tiny-block and expecting that the maintainers have the ability to fit into a billion-dollar-company’s timeline is unreasonable. Google et al. should keep risks or vulnerabilities private when disclosing them to FOSS maintainers instead of holding them to the same standard as a corporation by posting issues to a git repo.

A RCE or similar critical issue in ffmpeg would be a real issue with widespread impact, given how broadly it is used. That suggests that it should be broadly supported. The social contract with LGPL, GPL, and FOSS in general is that code is released ‘as is, with no warranty’. Want to fix a problem, go for it! Only calling out problem just makes you a dick: Google, Amazon, Microsoft, 100’s of others.

As many have already stated: If a grossly profitable business depends on a “tiny” piece of code they aren’t paying for, they have two options: pay for the code (fund maintenance) or make their own. I’d also support a few headlines like “New Google Chrome vulnerability will let hackers steal you children and house!” or “watching this youtube video will set your computer on fire!”