She consented to something but didn't consider/understand what that something implies. While it might be obvious for terminally online people, most people don't expect "cameos" to necessarily mean "fetish porn cameos".
balsoft
joined 2 years ago
Ah, sorry, missed the context
It's a word predictor. It is good at simple text processing. Think local code refactoring, changing the style or structure of a small text piece, or summarizing small text pieces into even smaller text pieces. It is ok at synthesizing new text that has similar structure to the training corpus. Think generating repetitive boilerplate or copywriting. It is very bad at recalling or checking facts, logic, mathematics, and everything else that people seem to be using it for nowadays.
Make it $800 billion. That would give each person $100.
I'm not talking about just taking the bullshit money away. The combined assets of "big" capitalists worldwide is in high-double-digit trillions of dollars. That would be enough for a livable UBI for everyone, for some time at least. Redistributing the rest of the capital more equitably is trickier but also worthwhile.
It us not. The rich can prevent you from starting if you need them to participate but nobody is preventing you from doing it yourself.
As I've said, I'm participating in local mutual aid communities when I can.
Even if they do, it’s just $100 more. You don’t need them.
Even $100 is considered an OK monthly salary in some places of the world. But redistributing all the wealth more equitably would mean a lot more than $100.
Stop defending capitalists, they will never appreciate it or give you anything in return.
Which is essentially communism
No, it's more like total welfare state socialism. Not yet achieved anywhere, but might happen within our lifetimes in China.
and a goal too far away.
Only because most working-class people think that, with a bit of class conscience is totally within our grasp.
Why should the rich share with the average person if the average person doesn’t want to share with the poor?
Because the average person, world-wide, is struggling to get by and doesn't have much in terms of extra resources, because the rich are stealing a significant portion of the labor value. Meanwhile the rich (who, again, are stealing the resources from the working person) are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stupid bullshit that even they don't really need. It's pretty clear that we should indeed start with the rich.
Start with the average person and the rich will join.
Lol. No. The rich will never do anything other than short-sighted profiteering unless directly threatened with imprisonment or death. Otherwise they would be joining the mutual aid orgs which already exist almost everywhere.
This exists already, it's called mutual aid, I'm participating in it when I can.
The reason why this won't work on a large scale without a societal shift is the same as why UBI isn't implemented already. It's capital leeching off a big share of resources from labor.
If we replace the capitalists with a fair sharing system, we could implement a generous UBI and also your effective net salary would go up.
Or, if you want to go a more reformist route, you can implement a very aggressive progressive taxation scheme (a-la FDR) to force rich people to contribute more. That way once again, we can implement UBI without your taxes going up.
Internet (via your smartphone) provides you with the ability to find any book, magazine or paper on any subject you want, for free (if you're willing to sail under the right flag), within seconds. Of course noone has a full bookshelf anymore, the only reason to want physical books nowadays is sentimentality or some very specific old book that hasn't been digitized yet (but in that case you won't have it on your bookshelf and will have to go to the library anyway). The fastest and most accurate way of doing research today is getting a gist on Wikipedia, clicking through the source links and reading those, and combing through arxiv and scihub for anything relevant. If you are unfamiliar with the subject as a whole, you download the relevant book and read it. Of course noone wants to comb through physical books anymore, it's a complete waste of time (provided of course they have been digitized).
$11
As it should be
No it's not, all necessary healthcare should be free at the point of use. As should be basic housing and food.
To me it sounds insane that you have to pay for insulin, which you must have in order to survive. If anything, I would think that $11 per pen is still at or above the cost price for the manufacturer, insulin is dirt cheap to make once you have the production line.
All that said, this is of course a step in the right direction. I won't be surprised if there's a wave of media attacks on him a month from now, all suspiciously linked to some shady ad firm with ties to big pharma.
They stopped doing research as it used to be for about 30 years.
Was it really "like that" for any length of time? To me it seems like most people just believed whatever bullshit they saw on Facebook/Twitter/Insta/Reddit, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to have so many bots pushing political content there. Before the internet it would be reading some random book/magazine you found, and before then it was hearsay from a relative.
I think that the people who did the research will continue doing the research. It doesn't matter if it's thru a library, or a search engine, or Wikipedia sources, or AI sources. As long as you know how to read the actual source, compare it with other (probably contradictory) information, and synthesize a conclusion for yourself, you'll be fine; if you didn't want to do that it was always easy to stumble upon misinfo or disinfo anyways.
One actual problem that AI might cause is if the actual scientists doing the research start using it without due diligence. People are definitely using LLMs to help them write/structure the papers ¹. This alone would probably be fine, but if they actually use it to "help" with methodology or other content... Then we would indeed be in trouble, given how confidently incorrect LLM output can be.
But it converts currency and weights and translates things as well as expected and in half the time i’d spend doing it manually
So does qalc, and it can also do arithmetic and basic calculus quickly and (gasp) correctly!
Sounds like that codebase was truly awful for user privacy then.
I assume many people just live in a sanitized, sterile internet created by Google/Meta et al. They might have never encountered the gooner/pervert culture before. Again, when most people see "cameo" their mind doesn't jump to "fetish porn cameo". As such, I don't think there was real consent here.