They'd be unlocking characters like Tekken
These big websites are all AI generated now.
I don't even see the point.
Why the hell would I want to go to your site to read the output of an AI. If I would like to do that I would go directly to ask the AI myself. It's stupid beyond measure.
For the few people being able to have access to those lot gardens, maybe.
The big thing is when you run the numbers.
The minimum amount of lang needed to feed a person in optimal conditions is around 1000m².
In a city like Madrid each person has available around 100m² and in that space it goes all the housing, public spaces, services, streets, etc.
How much space could be taken from everything else to create urban farming land? It's really hard to think that it wouls be enough to even amount for more than a few percent points of what it's needed.
And we have to take into account that all urban space dedicates to farm won't be usable for anything else. When you try to universalize it the numbers are just really hard to reconcile.
Yes! We have some of them. But the area and capabilities of the terrain doesn't give nearly enough for actual food purposes.
You can have a few good tomatoes harvest, but nothing that could actually sustain people.
Spain.
I've been trying to find it but no luck for now. I will quote again if I find it!
Is this better or worse that the emulation option that already existed?
Back in uni I had some teachers that had actually done a scientific study on the possibilities of urban food growing, and the results were that it was unsuitable for anything more that just a recreational activity.
I partially agree. If forced by stupid management results would clearly be worse.
Also people using LLM as search engines have a lot to do with internet entshitification. Surfing the web have become so obnoxious that asking an LLM the answer to something is easier.
This have two obvious conclusions from my point of view. First is that the best scenario would be a not entshitified internet. Second is that when LLMs, specially the big ones owned by big companies, get their dose of entshitification, users will be back on square one of not having a good way of extracting information out of this massive sea of information that we have built and which should be much easier to navigate.
Not really true.
LLM valuation in the market is aimed at several things, making unskilled people appear skilled is the smallest of them.
The most valuable position in the market right now is as a substitute of search enginesm
The second most valuable position in the market is as a tool to speed up work for already skilled people.
And I would argue that the third most valuable position in the market is a bot tool to substitute human iteration.
Unskilled people doing slop might be the most visible face of AI as it's very annoying but it's a minority of it's market, just a very loud minority.
Some humans cannot own knives responsibility. It doesn't mean I have to cut the pineapple with a spoon.
That blog post is just a bunch of insults to anyone not agreeing with the writer without actually giving any elaborate or truthful argument on why is not just a tool and it's always inherently "evil".
Some arguments made can be easily disproven. For instance the climate change one.
They main point of the post is that "no matter how you use LLMs". But then the argument given here it's highly dependant on how you use them. The amount of environmental damage of LLMs completely depends on which LLMs you use, how you use them and how often you use them. This just here it's showing the irrationally of the blog author.
But it goes one, next point is economics. Which is also 100% dependant on HOW YOU USE IT. Not all LLM are made by big evil corporations, and there's nothing in the technology preventing it being made by anyone.
For a blog post whose main argument is that saying "it depends how you use it" is wrong, have only give arguments that are dependant on how you use. The author makes broad ignorant assumptions about how people use LLMs, asserts that everyone uses them like that and then pretends to control everyone lives based of that. That way of thinking is highly dangerous and it's what have given birth to a lot of evil on our world. We need to be better, more rational, more open minded. Not falling for easy politics and actually do complex political thinking that won't give simple answers to complex questions.
We don't.
I don't see any benefit to society in doing so. Why the hell does the government need to know what my gender is at any point?
I agree that gender public records should disappear.
(OPEN-ENDED) I think the point of arguing is not to convince the other part or the anonymous readers. The point is to understand them.
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
I think one of the issues with online arguing, from most takes on it, is that the main reason people have to argue is to spread an idea. Whether it's by convincing the opposing part of the argument and making them change their mind, or by changing or reinforcing the mind of anonymous readers of the argument.
Most of the time this leads to one of two conclusions: If someone tries to change the other person's mind they will, most likely, find themselves hitting a wall, which will lead to frustration, disinterest, or personal attacks once it's seen that the other person will not change their mind. If they do not care about changing the other person's mind and just want to make clear that their own position is the right one to have, then the argument becomes a game of winning and losing. This could be achieved by many ways, depending on the context, it could lead to insulting and trying to put group pressure (via downvotes for instance) to make the other person's opinion seem as the "bad" one. Or via creating a game of rules, and play that game better to become a winner. Please excuse the small attack I'm about to make on this very space, but part of this second approach is the rules of debate, as in consider arguments without sources, emotional responses, or fallacies as losing points in the game of arguing. And often when the other part falls into one of this issues the goal quickly becomes to point out all this "faults" the other person made, so they are clearly shown as the loser. Don't get me wrong, it is important to argue without fallacies, and to be able to prove any statements that one's make. But I don't think anyone gains anything when the argument becomes a match on who is able to ask for more sources, link more articles and identify more fallacies.
That being said I'm going to just link some literature that support the basis of this statements. Can Arguments Change Minds? . This article goes into great lengths to show something that's easily seen when arguing online: People don't change their minds from an argument. The process of changing someone's mind is very complex. The article explains some study cases where people from extremist backgrounds changed their minds over time, in a context of discussion, but it's stated that this change had a lot more going out that just a proper intellectual discussion.
Why bother then? In my opinion, the best thing we can get when arguing with someone whose opinion differs to our own is to understand them. To find out their way of seeing things, their motives, their reasoning. That's a great value. And to get this often we need to let them talk the way they want to talk, this tend to lead to some undesirable things, like mentioned fallacies, unsupported claims or straight up bigotry and name-calling. But I think that it is still valuable knowing if that's their only reasoning, or trying to push past those to see if there's something more in depth about why they don't agree with us. But, ultimately, focusing the discussion in getting a win, will often make us miss a lot of valuable information that we could have gotten if we just saw the argument as a way to understand the other person, and of course, to understand ourselves. And not only for us to understand them, but to them to understand us. Explaining our point of view in the clearer way possible, and focussing not on winning when we talk about our opinions, but on showing why we have those opinions. To be able to reach a point of "I don't agree with you but I understand you".
Of course the big elephant in the room here is that taking this approach to it's logical conclusion would mean letting some people express ideas that we don't want to be expressed. The obvious example here is hate speech. Should hate speech, or extremist arguments be allowed, and discussed? If allowed, what's our goal when engaging into an argument with them, to convince, or to understand and make the other part to also understand us? This is where I'm more torn apart, as the logic of this reasoning leads me to believe that the best is the later, but it confronts with everything I've learn about how to deal with hate speech and dangerous ideologies until now. Thus why the (OPEN-ENDED) tag, and why I hope for anyone to jump and give their opinion on this.
view more:
next ›