Rhaedas

Can’t take anything seriously from a meme-originated account.

Even a bad idea like this has its loyal supporters who are fine with a car company making DIYers jump through hoops. Probably pay more for the luxury of not being able to do basic service on your own car.

I honestly was expected it to be lug nuts connected to the cloud that self-destructed if a code isn’t given in time. If you want people to buy your cars and take them to the dealer for servicing, then build better cars and have better service at decent prices. It’s common sense to anyone else.

The response to “what are you trying to hide” is always “WTF do you need to see so badly?”

We have most of them picking job security vs. asking the hard questions, and when a few do ask something beyond what’s expected from the officials we call them “brave”. All of them should be doing this.

Some of them from some networks are playing the game because they profit from it, which is a problem as well.

I’m just on FB for the Messenger, maximized to ignore the rest, since they make it all but impossible to use their network with third parties. Hmmm, sounds like Reddit now that I think about it, but FB did that move first. The hardest part of changing social media or any communications is getting the ones you want to stay connected with to use better alternatives. Again with the Reddit comparison, but look at how many stick with that still rather than branching out to a new thing like Lemmy. Or encrypted email.

But I agree with the title suggestion, any immersion of a single thing is damaging, and social media is by its nature and design addictive. If you can’t control your intake, you should avoid what you can altogether.

I’m going to take this from a different angle. These companies have over the years scraped everything they could get their hands on to build their models, and given the volume, most of that is unlikely to have been vetted well, if at all. So they’ve been poisoning the LLMs themselves in the rush to get the best thing out there before others do, and that’s why we get the shit we get in the middle of some amazing achievements. The very fact that they’ve been growing these models not with cultivation principles but with guardrails says everything about the core source’s tainted condition.

Right. I actually don’t have an issue with them not having a transponder on. That was the least of the problems. But not being aware of standard traffic around an airport… come on.

That’s comforting that they could be that way and be running silent from ATC and other aircraft anywhere. What could go wrong?

Nothing will happen because it’s US military, but shame on those pilots because you know THEY saw the JetBlue coming their way, knew the route they’d take, and didn’t give a shit. They didn’t even have to say anything, just change course.

If it’s slow, then it’s the central backup and you use anything else for regular use. Just having it as a fallback for recovery would be huge.

My first question was, why is this a target? This is terrorism and outside war rules (insane that we have rules for war instead of just not having it). Laws are only as good as their enforcement though.

Useful maybe. For what purposes though… getting labor costs down, pumping out stuff fast assuming it’s correct because it’s AI, being ahead of their competitors. Useful as in productive? Maybe for some cases when they know what AI can and can’t do or its limitations. I get the impression from this year’s news stories that a lot of them jumped on it because it was the new thing, following everyone else. A lot got burned, some backtracked where they could, some are quiet but aren’t pursuing it as much as they advertised.

OP is right, companies will go the direction they feel consumers will buy more from, and if that’s a “No AI” slogan, that’s what they’ll put. There’s no regulations on it, so just like before with ingredients or other labeling before rules were set, they’ll lie to get you to buy it. Hell, from a software pov there’s a big thing now on apps being sold as “FOSS” that are not, because there’s no rules to govern it. Caveat emptor.

Seems a bit too easy if that’s all you’re doing without any verification. If they’re checking that you are who you say you are, then it’s your money.

I see your point, but that exactly was a coping mechanism for something that didn’t have a solution. Is assisted suicide a modern version as a way to deal with an unsolvable problem (and I’m all for it btw, just comparing the goals of both).

I don’t think they are the same as finding ways to avoid grief, which is what the topic of a replacement of the lost individual is about. I’m sure anyone in the therapy field has already explored this to find any benefits of prolonging.

But in regards about the claim: I don’t even know how far the cloning has gone, or how it’s been accepted. But I have heard that immediately getting another pet to replace that loss isn’t a good thing to do for similar reasons for owner and pet, and the cloning is worse because it’s pretending it’s the same animal (in most cases, I can’t say everyone). That’s how it was sold, getting your pet back. I can’t see how this can turn into a better route for grief when there isn’t any, and might turn to despair or anger when the new version of the pet doesn’t act the same as the old.

But you’re right, there’s no data, it’s just a gut feeling based on my own experiences that I’m still dealing with in some respects.

If anything, the AI acting as far as just visual is not a huge jump from watching old video of them from the past. It’s a bit odd, but I can accept that times change and some things become normal that were not. Having an AI that responds back as if they were the person crosses the line that I’ve been talking about. Some people think ChatGPT with its flaws is still a person, so they’ll fall for this being the loved one from the grave, and I still hold that living in that fantasy is not healthy for the mind.

A source about grieving and acceptance vs. refusal to acknowledge a death? Realizing that people and things die isn’t romancing anything, it’s being realistic instead of pretending nothing happened or that they’re “back” from the dead.

The issue of giving people ways to avoid grieving and letting go of their loved ones popped up a number of years ago when places started offering clones of your deceased pet. Even that isn’t a good idea, and not fair at all to the animal. But it’s not good for the mental well being of the person. Death is part of life, and pretending someone is still here is not healthy.

Like the others have always been labeled afterwards.

“The Future is Now!”

also:

“We went too far.”

Some places are like that, and it makes sense. Others do not, and if there isn’t some formal paper connecting the two then they don’t get the benefits or penalties of making such commitment. I have a relative that lost their home of 35+ years because when the partner passed there was no mention in a will or any document of them contributing. Suddenly it wasn’t their place to live.

Everyone who compares growth here (here being very relative considering how it works) vs. the idealized Reddit is forgetting something. Age. You don’t get peak Reddit by looking at its first years, and yet you’re looking at the literal first years for Lemmy and company and saying it’s not comparable. No, it’s not.

Doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be constant discussion on improving and growing communities for better discussion, but the whole “oh no, the numbers are low” is ridiculous. Aside from being a aggregated discussion format, this is like comparing apples and cars. Reddit shouldn’t be a goal or benchmark, discussion flow here should be. I’ll be more worried about stagnation when feed numbers for myself drop back to the first few months, where there was concern about if federation would even work well. (and improving federation/defederation is also a great topic to talk about, it isn’t perfect, but it’s far better than it was)