A technological solution to a human problem is the appeal we have fallen for too many times these last few decades.
Humans are incredibly good at solving problems, but while one person is solving 'how do we prevent students from cheating' a student is thinking 'how I bypass this limitation preventing me from cheating'. And when these problems are digital and scalable, it only takes one student to solve that problem for every other student to have access to the solution.
What about sites like bitsdujour? I get an email with deals from them every so often (that I subscribe to) and have spent money on licenses after finding software that I liked.
Map the front speaker outputs to the side speakers and the problem will be mitigated. I have been using this setup for about 2 years and it lets me actually hear dialog.
He didn't say the internet was more liberal, he said the people on it were.
Before you start forming your reply, think about the actual culture back then. If you take slashdot as somewhat representative of the 90s internet culture, it was basically anti-corporate, meritocratic, non-judgmental, irreligious, educated, non-discriminatory, and once 2000 came around tended to be highly critical of the Bush agenda.
4chan at that time and places like it represented more of an edgelord culture, where showing vulnerability or sensitivity was shunned, everything revered by the larger populace was ruthlessly mocked, and distrust of society and government in general was taken as natural. Calling them conservative would have been non-sensical.
Exactly. If I had to characterize the general internet (read: what would and wouldn't raise an eyebrow in an average forum) in terms of political alignment, it'd probably be:
That SA / 4chan (both of which were really post-90s) existed were in no way proof of an anti-liberal bent. Their very edgelordness was an implicit reveling in absolute freedom of expression (even if their later liberal-pro-censoring and alt-right splinter movements subsequently forgot that).
That's an interesting difference to make. You are defining an AI based on a result (that it displays intelligence) yet dismissing another thing based on method (how it works). By that logic it would have to work by a method which you already define as intelligent in order to display intelligence. Isn't that circular?
Let's remove AI or LLM from this question and ask if there is anything any non-biological system could do to convince you that it was thinking?
Before LLMs, people had to write these things, and some of them didn't want to. They half-assed it and didn't mean what they wrote, but it was homework and they did it. Reading the letters, it would be tough to separate the sincere from the genuine, because it was done in everyone's typical style.
Now, you see the hallmarks of LLM text construction -- the effusive yet somehow stilted formality with an uncanny valley friendly tone that makes one feel at the same time like they are being sold something and that they are being used as a emotional dumping ground for an person with no self-esteem who needs constant validation.
When you see this, you will know who cares about the process and who does not. You can use that information however you like, but despairing for humanity is probably a bit overblown, IMO.
That doesn't really sound bad to me. I think we expanded our social reach too far and need to scale back to where we can feel like we have an impact and our voice matters.
For $125, which is also about the price of one year of cloud storage, you can get a hard drive big enough to store half a million photos and also back up a million photos. It probably won't ever go over $200.
And the hardware to serve that hard drive is somewhere between free and another hundred.
Sure, but then you're putting all your eggs in one basket (hard drive). If you really want to divest yourself of the cloud then you need to set things up in a redundant and fault-tolerant fashion. And at that point the outlay is much more than 'just a hard drive'.
Did you skip the "back a million photos" part? That's at least 3 copies of every file, spread across your group. If you want maximum safety you can add a local backup too, which isn't much more money. You don't need to spend anything on fault tolerance. Your files should already be on multiple servers, but also if it goes down for a few days that isn't a big deal.
He is a journalist who writes a newsletter and focuses on social media, politics, and breaking news. Being away for a week in does count as disappearing in his world.
I think what he is trying to say is that if we all sit down with each other and stop requiring that people agree with our worldview before engaging in good faith, we would find that we actually get along peacefully. He is saying that it isn't as bad as he thought it was before he experienced a situation where that happened.
See them discuss about how much someone of them gets paid or taxed, if he has medical help if needed or if he can afford to live where he's living now.
This person lives and breathes politics, he is a political blogger. Just interacting with people outside of politics was new for him.
He isn't saying 'ignore politics', and he isn't saying 'we can all agree on everything'. What he is saying is 'making your life about political issues distorts your perspective to where you think that everyone hates one another to point of declaring a civil war' and is advocating sitting down and just socializing with people without the baggage.
But this is an environment where people aren’t talking about real and very important issues.
We obviously get along as a society when we are just doing day to day things. You don’t have to be on vacation to witness that.
But when it comes to discussing whether my trans friends have basic human rights, or whether we should treat foreigners like criminals with no due process by default, whether we should build
coal power plants or nuclear power plants or solar power plants, or whether we should start a war, or whether healthcare should be a human right, it’s easy to find people I’ll have strong disagreements with these days.
And those are disagreements that have real consequences. Just ask the people I know who are discontinuing healthcare coverage due to ACA subsidies ending.
Ignorance and avoiding discussing these issues is bliss…until one day it might affect you.
The polarization is unfortunate but I think one way to lessen that is to actually confront issues and solve them. And that’s a fight since there’s a whole system setup that intends us to never solve those problems. But perhaps we might observe that a lot of the solved problems no longer occupy the debate space.
If you want to get people on your side, the best way to do that is not to argue with them, but to be friendly with them. This doesn't mean rolling over and letting them say untrue things or not advocating for causes that are important to you, but it means respecting that other people have different views and putting aside disagreements to socialize with them. There is a reason why armies disallow 'fraternizing with the enemy'.
Humans are incredibly good at solving problems, but while one person is solving 'how do we prevent students from cheating' a student is thinking 'how I bypass this limitation preventing me from cheating'. And when these problems are digital and scalable, it only takes one student to solve that problem for every other student to have access to the solution.
reply