bavell

It's a fruit where I live.

Yeah, this is the direction I worry about. Why bother being creative when the AIs "do it better"? How many people will bother paying for human art when AIs "do it better"? Will human creativity be relegated to a tiny niche in a sea of AI content? Will this all but erase paid human art except for highly specialized and narrow niches? Am I too pessimistic?

I believe Tesla has been doing some form of this to expand their training datasets.

Life/nature is certainly amazing and incredibly complex. Earth has been around for about 1/3 of the age of the universe though. You could flip your question and ask why it's taken so long.

Pipewire has been fantastic. Works great and was a drop-in replacement for pulseaudio.

This is just FUD. I've learned a ton from AthleanX in the past few years and love his no-nonsense approach. Especially great are all the corrective exercises he includes for posture improvement and injury prevention. The worst thing I could criticize him for is his clickbait Youtube titles - the content is solid though so idgaf.

Any politician running on a platform to repeal the Patriot act et al would have my vote, regardless of party and almost without regard to any other positions they hold.

Assuming this is true... I hope the heavy hammer of justice comes crashing down on this slimy bastard. We could really use a boost to confidence in our institutions. Just hope he doesn't get "Epsteined".

I've been playing around with EdgeDB lately and it addresses a lot of the concerns you laid out. Might be worth a look.

Do you consider forums "social media"?

I'm ecstatic to finally be upgrading from my 970 :) best $400 I ever spent, just wish I could have upgraded years ago... GPU market has been shit lately. Finally seems to be improving but still not great.

Same here, I'm planning to finally upgrade my workstation GPU this gen (I've been coasting along forever with my 970). ML/DL is just a fun side benefit, not enough for me to pay the Nvidia tax and the Linux headaches that come along with it.

Right, Twitter provided their own definition which delicately tiptoes around the unsavory issue and Weiss expanded the definition to suit her own self-interests.

How does that make what "most people" would consider not matter? Seems like a non-sequitur to me but maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Sure would be easier if the world was that black and white but unfortunately there are a lot of gray areas employees encounter which are left up to their subjective judgement.

OP made many points and I responded to one in particular with my opinion. Seems germane to me, although point taken about starting a top-level thread for better visibility/discussion.

I very much appreciate your good-faith response even though I'm not entirely convinced (yet?). Getting late for me so I have to bow out for now. I hope we as a community continue to discuss these issues, as it seems to be central to a lot of the problems we face today and will be facing tomorrow.

I'll be frank - I couldn't give a rat's ass about Weiss or Taibii. I'm not familiar with them and they're obviously trying to squeeze as much juice out of this story as they can.

However, I see a lot of people here dismissing the wider and (imo) more valid complaints about veiled moderation tactics by beating up these two and calling it a day, case closed. I don't care what specific narrow definition twitter chose on a whim in some blog post and I'm not concerned with strictly "shadow-banning". The fact is, these global influence platforms are easy to subvert by immensely powerful interests (state actors, billionaires, etc) and the power we're placing in these people's hands is incredible, way beyond what any authoritarian dictator of yesteryear could even dream up. And when how the sausage is made is ever so slightly exposed, it's dismissed and hand-waved away.

What could go wrong?

If this[0] is accurate, then 99.7% of political contributions made by Twitter employees went to Democrats in 2022.

Is it unreasonable to suspect people on the right are targeted more often than the people on the left? Wouldn't that be the default assumption and the opposite position would need evidence to prove otherwise?

[0] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598829996264390656?s=20&...

> I don't think Weiss understands what "shadow ban" means. It means that you post Tweets, but no one ever sees them. None of the practices she describes amount to what is usually described as a shadow ban or a hellban. Preventing a post from showing up in trends or searches is not a shadow ban. Google SafeSearch does not "shadow ban" explicit images or links.

Colloquially, I think many information suppression tactics get lumped under the term "shadow-ban" and that your definition is very narrow. It reinforces your position so I understand why you're defining it as such but it's not very convincing to anyone who doesn't share your position. Of course, that's assuming you're genuinely interested in persuasion instead of yelling into the echo chamber.

I do agree with your points about this not being a surprise and how some are over-exaggerating the severity of these leaks but I'm also slightly concerned over how blase "hackers" here on this site are treating the news. All around us are these huge, easy-to-abuse, global influence platforms with cozy backchannels to the most powerful bureaucratic state (US govt) that we've ever seen. And yet many comments I've seen so far are along the lines of, "No worries, this stuff happens all the time and is totally normal and okay. Move along now!" I would have expected more skepticism, cynicism and backlash from this crowd. Am I wrong?

Yeah it's way beyond that

Just a matter of opinion!

Mine has never asked for the name twice but they recently started slipping numbered cards under your wipers after placing your order.

I remember CFA posting some articles a few years back on their k8s setup they use for store and inventory management.

You're one of today's lucky 10k :)

Wow, 99.7% contributions went to democrats... If that isn't damning evidence of partisan bias I don't know what is! I honestly wasn't expecting it to be that one-sided.

Yes, this is so painfully obvious that it seems disingenuous to be so naive as to not understand.

Agreed, I'm not surprised at all but I'm glad it's in the open.

It's slightly less dangerous because they don't have guns. Still very dangerous though!

Username checks out ;)

Glad I'm not the only one suffering through this misery!

Completely agreed. Although I'm not sure the balance of trade-offs needs to change due to recent events, I certainly believe it's worth discussing.

> hate speech is the thing that some people try to defend under the banner of free speech.

I think it's more of an acknowledgement that there's a price to freedom/liberty and there are fundamental trade-offs involved. I.e. can't have our cake and eat it too.

The difficulty is in finding where exactly the draw the line. For better or worse, currently there are many technically legal yet unsavory views allowed under "freedom of speech".

You've spelled out pretty well the dangers of free speech but if we err to much on the side of caution, that itself causes animosity and discord from (perceived or actual) loss of liberties. And of course, if left unchecked, it can create a culture which embraces more centralized concentration of power, inviting corruption and further concentration.

I'm still wrestling with my own thoughts on where to draw the line and how to balance freedom with safety.