MysticKetchup

1. This is way too brief and lacks any actual evidence for its argument
2. It doesn't touch on the main argument of AI bubble forecasters: that AI costs a massive amount of money to develop and run but does not make nearly enough money to recoup that investment. And people don't seem to be interested enough in AI to actually pay for it, especially given that the actual price will be very high

Wow yet another example of forcing AI into something that the AI just makes worse. Must be a day that ends in Y

1. This article likes to repeat itself a lot
2. Is this article actually about how the author didn't like The Gilded Age?
3. Only showing critic reviews and not showing user reviews seems like less of an issue than the article presents, given that a quick glance at Rotten Tomatoes shows that critic and user scores tend to be pretty similar but critic scores are lower 9 times out of 10

So the guy that spent half a year taking away lifesaving aid from starving people now says money is no big deal? Then why spend so much time cutting welfare programs?

That's not even starting on the fact that current AI and robots are nowhere near the full automation level for the vast majority of necessary work.

The robot is the only one who won't divorce him

I'm not saying there aren't subtle ones that get through, I'm just saying that there's nothing in the report distinguishing between the obvious shill and a well disguised advert. Granted, if an advert is disguised well enough, it's hard to track in a study like this, but there are plenty that aren't obvious until you start poking around posting history or metadata

The 2020 study published in Computers in Human Behavior analyzed the top 100 subreddits — the most influential communities on the entire platform. Their finding? 15% of these subreddits contained content likely posted by bots or corporate trolls specifically designed to promote companies or organizations.

"15% of all subreddits contained corporate bot content" is very different than "15% of all content"

This also doesn't really give a whole picture. How much of this content actually trends? There's always some corporate sludge at 0 points if you sort by New, which is how the site is supposed to work. And even some stuff that gets brute forced through is "Hey fellow kids" level obvious and gets trolled or removed by mods.

And while Reddit right now is a soulless husk, all of these things need to be studied on Lemmy as well. Right now there's probably not much because we're just not a big target, but as it grows it's certain that corporate shills and propaganda farms will start to target us. Like I'm not opposed to the general idea of the research, but it really needs to be more specific and in-depth to be helpful

He has previously suggested that Greta Thunberg could be the Antichrist, but her name is not thought to have come up at the talks so far.

So the billionaire building autonomous weapons and spying technology used for genocide who also injects the blood of young men to rejuvenate himself is here to warn us about the dangers of young climate activist trying to deliver food to starving Palestinians?

It's sad that we're at a point where people will actually listen to him and think he is anything other than a terrible person

There's also no way to really tell what the "cost" of generative AI is on creative fields, or any way to determine who gets what money. There aren't going to be enough grants to cover every small, independent artist whose work is buried beneath mountains of AI slop

And like, the obvious issue is who is going to enforce this? Pretty much every government has been cozying up with the billionaire tech bros that run AI companies and will fight tooth and nail against any legislation like this proposal

In addition to what others have said, SmartTube has options to remove them on Android TV devices

Seems like a normal, sane and totally not-biased source