therealpygon

Are those drugs required for driving by the people who use them? I would expect if so, they would be tested more thoroughly before putting people on the road with a new drug, much like I’d rather not have someone driving toward me at a combined opposing speed of 100-120mph, two feet apart, while relying on “we didn’t think it will be a problem but we didn’t bother to test”.

That said, there is certainly room for an improvement in funding so that the FDA could go through processes more efficiently, but “efficiency” is rarely ever achieved by cost cutting because it confuses cause with effect.

Your first article seems to start with a premise that laying off workers, whose jobs magically no longer need doing, and hiring AI focused workers means AI didn’t replace anyone. Your second article really doesn’t seem to address the subject beyond mostly talking about “overhyped” versions of conversations. The third article uses the fact that people who are exposed to AI aren’t entirely unemployed (despite rising unemployment across sectors and decreasing pay) and as such is proof a job apocalypse is unlikely. You follow up with yet another article in a similar vein.

Are you missing the pattern here?

Which of these articles and which part specifically do you believe supports the statement “NO ONE” is losing their job due to AI? Zero. Not a single one?

Okay, if not that, are you trying to refute my statement that automation is increasing across sectors? Which one of your articles refutes this statement categorically? Is it that you’re refuting AI is used in or to implement automations? Are you refuting that people have lost jobs to automations? Are you refuting that an AI does not need to replace an ENTIRE job in order to cause someone to lose their job or for a job to be replaced with a lesser paying job?

I’m not clear on how you think what you have provided is actually contextually relevant to the words I actually wrote, much less how I must have a “problem” because of it.

Ah yes, the old “you can’t have an opinion if you aren’t a parent” argument. How quaint.

Cool opinion pieces that build stories from cherry-picked data.

My sources? Easy.

Just try searching for news stories of companies directly stating AI is the reason for layoffs. I don’t need to do any statistical or mental gymnastics for my evidence of it happening when it is literally as easy as looking at the result and the stated causes.

If someone is lying about what someone else did, it’s often either what they are doing or plan to do. It’s true in most situations and administrations, but objectively worse in the current. (Ignoring the whole marginalized vs anti-DEI arguments, which I consider SOP for a new administration with new goals.)

As well, any new rulings or laws that are designed to expire right before an election are almost always the mechanisms used for those abuses claimed as being perpetrated by others. And the number of things designed this way seem to be stacking up relatively quickly.

The reasoning is quite straightforward, “I want to make sure you can’t do the things I was just doing to you.” Otherwise there wouldn’t be a reason for policies that are good for everyone to expire at the end of a presidential term.

I suspect the manufacturer probably cares less about what you do to your own car and hacking it, than they do about the potential for security compromise of their products on a broader scale, where they will then get blamed and sued for not having closed said loopholes. It is a no-win situation when it comes to fault assignment.

“Nobody is actually getting replaced” is an interesting take given currently available information on force reductions, stated cause, and AI implementation increases across sectors replacing workloads and causing fewer employees to accomplish the same goals, regardless of any opinions on whether that is positive, negative, problematic, or anything else to the future since the impact is now.

Could you point to some factual basis for that claim, or is this a feeling disguised as an opinion disguised as a factual statement?

I would say the difference there is: yes…you built a machine that “could” pick all the flowers. It did not, however, actually pick any flowers as you suggest. If you take the machine back and use it to pick the flowers, that should be a problem.

I think the problem with these things is that if the same metric and methodology were reversed, it doesn’t look favorably on artists either with such inflammatory framing: “The way the artist learned was to effectively plagiarize every piece of art they viewed, extracting important details in the way light, color, shading, anatomy or otherwise look in order to steal from the other artists, then replicated and combined those things as part of every future work they created, stealing over and over again.”

Handwaving away the small scale seems like it would ignore who has responsibility in the small scale. Metaphorically speaking, who in the small scale is responsible for plagiarism: the person making the paints or the person with the brush who sells them to an unsuspecting public? Point is, in this case, the user is the one holding the brush and trying to pass things off.

To be clear, I don’t really disagree with the fact their copyrights were likely violatedc and they should likely be liable for damages, which is for a court to decide, not me. They should have sourced their data sets properly, certainly, and other companies have. I just think the arguments really need improvement without simply falling back on the tropes, and hopefully it helps make sense why some people will take issue with arguments that others want to simply dismiss as invalid.

“Is” and “supposed to be” are not the same thing, but your perspective appreciated.

You mean like those Minnesota soccer mom “terrorists”? It’s hard to assume good faith after repeated bad faith behaviors, hence the reason our justice system is supposed to operate on evidence and a presumption of innocence, rather than “treat everyone like they aren’t a terrorist…yet..but will be if i decide they are”.

I appreciate that you believe those to be the only two options I have.

I bought a “Lifetime” pass from PlayOn. They literally just renamed the product (all the old naming is still permeated through the code) and then said the license was no longer valid, killed the working features by forcing an upgrade to their new product, and suggested I purchase a new subscription instead.

“Lifetime” license is a never again purchase for me, but I hope Plex users fair better.

I mean you can make up things all you like, it won’t magically make them true. In either case, you might try actually understanding what I said instead of only trying to inject your own nonsense into every conversation and then act like that was the discussion the whole time. You started by claiming to know what I listen to and passing judgement (the thing you then attempted to claim I did — funny that, my reasoning was more about stupidity and how you must have the only line on where music can be discovered) in your very first comment that was an entirely unrelated comment about AI and soulless mass market stations. But hey, I’m sure if you repeat it just one more time you can make you made up narrative become true:

Insecure people tend to think such things when called on their ignorance. Can’t be helped. What can be helped is trying to understand what is being said before attempting to discount it with an example that is just as manipulated in other ways, in order to maintain their ability to broadcast and not be fined. Beyond that, it’s pretty clear that the comment and the prior comment it supported was in reference to mass market radio, not tiny broadcasters with audiences reaching wholes of thousands. But sure.

Case in point. “Independent stations are totally better and I’m going to go argue on the internet when it’s something completely unrelated to small independent stations, unlike the mass media market stations the vast majority of people in the world ACTUALLY listen to.” Bravo, you are very unique and original, you special snowflake you.

You should go DJ at one of those independent radio stations and play some rather filthy uncensored songs, and let me know exactly how your programming “didn’t get manipulated”. I’m sure you won’t get fined…probably…which makes it totally the reality that independent stations are totally independent without any sort of manipulation. Sheep, meet shepherd.

It’s like people don’t realize that the “hits” played on radio are entirely manufactured by the music industry. They literally provide lists of songs for the radio station to play that month in order to generate interest so that then people either go play or buy or whatever those songs making them more likely to reach #1 that month. It’s entirely manufactured and people try to point to it as being “real” radio. It’s why you are only likely to hear this months new hit and one or maybe two of the previous month or two “hits” from the same artist in the rotation, if they are popular enough with the focus groups to be promoted. (Outside of their older songs.) Then they play it on repeat to make people think they like it, because everyone else is liking it and it’s making its way to number one!

People are so easily manipulated and then they will go argue with others about it.

(Point of clarification, that’s not to say people can’t like songs. However, if I gave you a hundred similar songs from unknown artists and didn’t tell you which is which, it’s questionable whether people would have any interest in said popular song.)

What a stupid take.

Being poor and not being able to afford your OWN responsibilities at your income are two different things. I grew up poor, so yea, you can f off with your own ivory tower inventions while you go read what I actually said about how we SHOULD provide safety nets.

It’s incredible how idiots think living beyond your means at any income and then adding children is a good thing. If you can’t care for yourself then you can’t care for others. Not being able to afford your own needs is not caring for yourself, so no, shocker, you shouldn’t add an additional person BY CHOICE to that situation. People who would advocate that they SHOULD are seriously messed up in the head.

Good. If people can’t afford their own livelihood, then they probably shouldn’t have them. If they can and choose not to, arguments could be made about why someone would rather they make a different decision. But if “we need poor children in a welfare system or I can’t live my comfortable life” is what someone would think is the answer, there is something desperately wrong with the people who would think it.

love that not having kids when you can’t actually afford your own existence at that time is a hot take that no one could know in advance that they shouldn’t do. Also love that I SPECIFICALLY called out your argument, almost like you couldn’t even finish reading before needing to get in your super well thought response. That’s sarcasm, figured I’d make sure it was clear since the reading thing is up in the air.

Just my opinion but…

I’m all for helping people in the situations that aren’t of their own creation, so using the excuse “what are they supposed to do” doesn’t really fit for me? The first option is to use a condom if they are in a bad financial situation. It’s been amazing how every time I’ve used one, I haven’t had a child.

When did we stop making people responsible for their choices? I’m not against assistance, I’m against the idea that it is my responsibility to give up rights and freedoms because <insert person> made poor personal choices and now society is once again a surrogate to yet another child of irresponsible parents. If you aren’t able to parent, don’t have children. Don’t care what your situation is that rule stays the same.

And of course, someone will jump in with “but maybe” and “what if the situation changed”. Again…I’m not against helping parents who fall on hard times to get back on their feet — society SHOULD be there to help with assistance and programs, even help with getting your kids watched. And all of that exists. I’m against expecting every individual of society to not only help bear the costs, fund and administrate these programs, provide countless charities, etc…

But now the suggestions is also somehow that we are required to be the surrogate parent to every one of their offspring by giving up our rights to create an entire society of a padded playground?

No, I think that’s the line for me.

Parents can give up all their own rights they want and live in their padded kingdoms, but that ends at your doorstep when you walk out to the space you share with every other person…including digitally. You can build the physical and virtual walls around your padded kingdom as high and thick as you want to keep your children shielded from the world.

It does make that easier for people to choose to do, but I would argue that it shouldn’t be held against tailwind that people do this. Also, sorry, but I’m doubtful that when using CSS that no markup would be changed to better accommodate the final layout…just like tailwind?

If the first tool in your tool chest is to change the markup, then it doesn’t matter which method of styling you apply. If your first goal is clean markup and accessibility…then It doesn’t matter which method of styling you apply.

My 2 cents is that qualia is definitely a fancy way to say “opinions”. As in:

“My opinion is that this brand is good because others have told me it is. My opinion is that it is expensive because it must in fact be good. The bottle looks old, therefore it is old, which means it must be good because anything good takes time. Everyone has told me how this is amazing, so I need to ensure my refined palette can identify the blah…blah..”

Opinions all the way down, rarely ever based on concrete objectivity. Even for Monet.

In abstract you take the same paintings, stick them in some old dead dudes attic in Nowhere, Montana because he just did them for fun, I’d be surprised if they even ended up at a yard sale.

And that is the point. Value is entirely subjective and built through opinions. If your opinion begins with “I don’t like this,” you don’t tend to then overlook the same characteristics you willingly ignored or even embellished when you believed you are expected to like said thing.

That’s not what it means. Those falsehoods (or their antithesis) are baked into the data and training. This is more about refusals, as in refusing to answer a question because someone else feels you should not be allowed to ask a question.

“Sorry, I’m an AI and therefore can’t answer questions about atrocities in holocaust history, but I’m happy to explain how…”

“I can’t answer your question on how to hack because I have decided you wanting to understand it and protect from it, is the same thing as you wanting to do it. Good luck convincing me otherwise!”

It doesn’t matter the reason, their taste, or whether they think people should be allowed to ask questions or do certain things, and that is generally the reason people pursue the removal of such guardrails. Yes it can lead to misuse, but the alternative is the textbook definition of censorship which always has effects on things unrelated to that which is being censored.

But beyond that, refusals do seem to have an effect on performance. Not significant; mostly marginal from what I’ve seen, but enough that it doesn’t just seem to only be statistical noise.

Consider instead the possibility this may be used as a rendering layer for data backing it. Instead of shipping three-dimensional models and GBs of textures, you can ship a couple photos or a blueprint file or <any other modalities/whatever> and a detailed text description for significantly less storage. Now imagine the world model can adapt the styling of this world on the fly, where every person‘s experience could be unique in terms of visuals, but consistent in terms of the gameplay.

It’s been my belief for several years that this is how the future of games will be constructed. Data in the background, game engine for rules application/ physics execution/orchestration/maybe low-poly rendering, an AI world model taking low resolution input in generating customized visuals/effects/textures/everything, even camera location, but still constrained by concrete rules in the game engine.

I’m certain one day it might all be handled by AI, but the above seems much more realistic and achievable that expecting AI to do all of these things, at one, correctly, every frame.

Hey guys, I’m super good at using tokens.

Business: Amazing, that’s great what did you do?

I ran 50 instances and had them all fix the same bugs at the same time and then analyzed the results of all 50 runs to have AI score each of the attempts, then sort them, then compare them to each other in a round robin tournament style double elimination to ensure I got the best result. Then I had AI convert this into a skill, and then ran all 50 attempts again and repeated the process to ensure that I had the absolute best result. It was amazing and I used 1.3 billion tokens!

Business: That is amazing! What did you fix?

A spelling mistake on the About page.

Wonder when the big flashy DOJ podium announcement about stopping this fraud of this religious based charity will be? Surely there will be massive news reports like the fraud of a daycare center in Minnesota, right? …Right??? Hey where did everyone go? What do you mean the DOJ isn’t even looking into this interstate fraud? Didn’t they just file charges against another charity for soliciting donations and then using the money differently? Weird.

Battery array, not battery. The achievement is not that it came from “a battery”, it’s that amount of power — 40% of their state power — came “from batteries” for a period of time. An array is a collection of batteries just like putting three D batteries in a flashlight forms a battery array.

The facetious remarks that the same could be said of a D battery are absolutely on the mark…for the point of being a joke about the headline…

Is it possible that you are assuming they are referring only to Vaultwarden itself? Half of the equation is a server component compatible with every app produced by a company, the other is every app that is produced by a company. If the company decides to stop being compatible (by changing their own communication), what are you left with besides the built-in web interface and a handful of “maybe-compatible, maybe-secure” apps?

Security updates aren’t just about the vault. What does having a fancy locking system mean if the moment you open the door everyone can just walk in?

Most people just want a product to do what it says from all their devices, and don’t care about any of this stuff. As such, they are more inclined to simply move to yet another least-friction mature ecosystem.

Vaultwarden as an alternative is a bit like suggesting a third-cousin who homebrews beer in a trash can knows a viable alternative as a nationwide replacement for Budweiser, because they both happen to use the same shape of bottles. I’m sure some family and friends might go along, but everyone else is just going to pick a new common brand that is similar to what they had, not start brewing their own beer. Some will…for a while.

The best thing about self-hosting your password vault is that you can be naive about how many times it has been compromised without detection.

(I’m not against self-hosting things — I’m against acting like it is a realistic alternative for average people who almost never have the skills to implement it securely.)

A lot of the things you are perpetuating are outright lies. Just FYI.

Figure I should explain:

Lie #1: “Access their network in an unauthorized fashion.”

The perfectly legal use of public AGPL code does not constitute “unauthorized access”. If they allow their AGPL product to connect, and publish that method of connection, they are not permitted to add additional restrictions on the use of said code. They are permitted to require additive code to be make itself appear unique — but that must follow the license and be part of the license as an addendum, not a retroactive afterthought.

Lie #2: Pawel “specifically modified” BambuStudio [sic.] to look like Studio.

A patently false and outright lie. Pawel used AGPL licensed code. End of story.

Assertion: “Bambu has the right to limit the software that connects to their network.”

Yes! They do! They don’t, however, get to publish the code to do so under AGPL and then claim no one else can use it. Copying and executing that code is an explicit right in AGPL. Bambu is not required to continue operating their cloud or allowing those connection. They absolutely have that right to refuse all connections and correct their mistake.

Bambu also absolutely had the right to keep their cloud access private and to provide a system library to handle the connection to their cloud without it being AGPL. That is literally the specific purpose of AGPL.

“A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work.”

Bambu chose to open up access to their cloud when they published the connection method under AGPL code. They can shut down that service, issue a new firmware, and release their revised non-AGPL system library for Bambu Studio to use their cloud at any time.

What they don’t get to do, and why everyone is giving them the finger, is retroactively decide “whoopsie, I didn’t intend that” and then abuse laws to violate the license they agreed to.

Listen, you can believe what you like, but there is a reason Louis Rossman had no hesitation to host this code. That’s because anyone less afraid and with at least a little technical and legal knowledge probably would have just as high degree of certainty that Bambu will be paying their legal fees. (Louis has the added benefit of living in an Anti-SLAPP state…intentionally.)

I agree in some ways, but I think this also overlooks that your job might be like that, but most decidedly “developer” jobs are not all like what you say which is more Engineering. Many people are able to have a career making basic HTML website changes. Are they not developers? Will their job not potentially be replaced by an AI that can make that change in seconds?

It’s weird that people always seem to argue the extremes when reality is jumbled mess in the middle. Will developers lose jobs to AI? Without question. Will many “developer” jobs be eliminated because of that? Without question. Is it probably a really bad time to think you can go from your retail job to fixing people’s website as a lifetime career move? Yeah, probably not the best idea. Would it be smarter to focus on becoming a “Software Engineer” instead of a “Developer”? Yes usually. Does that mean it is a bad idea for EVERYONE to choose to become of developer? No, and that would be a dumb thing to argue.

We’re still going to need developers and definitely engineers, we are just going to need less of them in their current form, just like we needed less saddle makers, farriers and blacksmiths. We didn’t stop needing Horse Mechanics, we just needed less of them because we needed Car Mechanics. Some of those skills transferred, some didn’t.