@Bishma At this point I think the Fediverse might make a big stance on it, I know I would love to help keep that on there even if I have to log back into my Reddit.
Or maybe a QR code that goes to an intro to the fediverse post/video! We should really plan this and make it. I hate Reddit, but I'm willing to go back to bring awareness to the fediverse.
QR codes are WAY too easy to break with a few wrong pixels tho. Would be almost impossible to keep it intact. Text is a better alternative. Or logos because people might leave it alone as you draw it waiting to see what it becomes.
As someone who did uber and lyft, let me tell you that these algorithm are exceptionally fine tuned to meet $/hr over long term driving. In my area, it is tuned to hit close to 20/hr ± 4 dollars/hr. You bet that on some trips uber is taking larger percentage vs other trips to meet this target. This is clearly how their system works to squeeze every dollar out of both drivers and clients.
Note: this is with OR without doing promotions and specials.
Those algorithms will try their best to get you out of profitable areas and stick you with low pay rides once you pass this 20/hr threshold. Especially if you are doing promotions, as they know that you will more than likely meet this target $/hr mark.
No, LLMs can’t write good novels and they won’t be able to in the future. Yes, LLM-produced text is going to show up in all kinds of places where it doesn’t belong. Having an LLM write an entire novel from a single prompt and then selling it for money through self-publishing is a kind of asset-flipping and it is a scam. I think this is the use people are the most upset about.
This is an interesting article because it’s not featuring a scammer, but featuring a professional writer who has decided to use LLMs to assist her in writing including using LLM-produced passages in the context of her original writing. This is much more of a gray zone to me and not actually something I’m necessarily opposed to.
One of the first things I did with an LLM was to have it convert my silly ideas into iambic pentameter and it was a lot of fun. I didn’t tell it, “write a poem in iambic pentameter about X” and then try to sell whatever it gave me. I had it convert each of my descriptions part by part one at a time and often I had to generate several different versions of the same passage before I even had something to clean up. Some of what ended up in the finished product was directly from the machine, but most of it I had to re-write. It was interesting to experiment with.
The difference between a scamming people and using an LLM as a tool is reflected in the finished product. A writer has to know what works and what doesn’t work because most of what the machine will give is not going to be usable as-is, and if it is usable it is by happenstance as it happened to conform with what the writer was trying to express at that moment. A human mind is still absolutely necessary to write something someone would want to read, especially if they are choosing whether to read it, and I don’t see that changing with what these models are capable of or possibly capable of. This being the case there are probably going to be some distinctive traits of LLM-produced stuff that people will probably pick up on and get tired of. I’m interested to see how all art develops in a direction to distinguish it from what LLMs can produce such as when painting diverged significantly after the invention of the camera.
LLMs are really crappy at writing books right now.
However there is zero evidence they will not get better, in fact they are getting exponentially better all the time at all tasks which are getting measured.
My bet is on LLMs soon being able to put out mediocre fiction, and then not much later great fiction, indistinguishable from the best authors out there.
That’s not possible with the technology. LLMs will never be able to write compelling stories because they are incapable of comprehending anything. There will need to be a human “at the wheel” guiding every stage of the process.
Or maybe that’s what you meant? LLMs will get better at making compelling snippets, if guided correctly.
I know I’m more confident than most that LLMs are incapable of producing art. Although you are correct to say that it has not been disproven that LLMs may have the potential to produce art, there is also not currently any evidence supporting that they could create art. We’ll see how it ultimately plays out but allow me to explain why I don’t find it likely that LLMs are the technology we can ever expect art to come from.
Inherent Limitations
LLMs are fascinating and useful for a lot of things, but they are not intelligent. A “neural net” which is “learning” through exposure training data is more sophisticated than other ways of text and image generation that we have yet invented, but compared to the system it’s meant to resemble it is hopelessly outclassed. We can’t currently make something which resembles a human brain because we don’t have a firm grasp as to how one works at all. What little we do know indicates a level of complexity that might literally be beyond human comprehension. A brain is made of billions of neurons connected to one another at trillions of points by branches. At any given moment, these trillions of branches are sending and receiving not in binary but by various combinations of neurotransmitters. At a basic level we know that the the result of this neurotransmitter activity (which is different by the area of the brain it occurs in and even is highly variable between different brains) is a mind made up of some kind of consciousness, subconsciousness, and instinct. This system was not designed by human minds but is the result of eons of natural selection. We have no idea how to even begin replicating something like this, although neural nets could be a step forward. We would need a much larger system working in a fundamentally different way which we may not be able to replicate with our limited faculties
The Quality of Art
In my opinion, of all intellectual processes the production and appreciation of art is probably the most demanding of the system I described above. There is a continuum from concrete to abstract, and while computers are excellent tools to store and process concrete data, art falls on the furthest end of abstraction. Mathematics and the natural sciences are often clearly quantifiable. Social sciences, containing social constructs which change depending on variables we are not fully aware of including the interaction of billions of the above system interacting with one another, is significantly more difficult to quantify although still possible. It is not possible to quantify the quality of art. What makes good art? We have no idea. We have never had any idea. Art is not quantifiable and may often be appreciated on a level beyond our ability to describe or even understand. There is absolutely no guide to making good art and there can’t be. Every attempt to define art has been defied in a way which is considered more expressive and more artistic than the limited products a definite process may produce. At the highest level, art is the pure expression of intentional and/or unintentional meaning from one mind to another on levels we aren’t even aware of in many cases. A machine using sophisticated word-association algorithms using a tiny fraction of the computing power a typical brain has is just not powerful enough to accomplish what a human can.
The Human Element
LLMs are not aware in the same way a human is aware and couldn’t be. Although I think it’s possible to create a true Artificial Intelligence and LLMs may be a step forward in that direction, any AI is not going to be able to understand a human experience because they can’t have them. LLMs don’t have needs or desires, they don’t have relationships or a reason to form relationships, they don’t even have the basic requirement of life to maintain a system against entropy. These are things most animals with a nervous system more developed than a worm can act according to. Building upon these animal needs, our neo-cortexes in addition allow us to have thoughts, rationally solve problems, make plans, and form and store memories. Some of those things we find computers have an easier time with because they have fewer biases, but we have biases for reasons good and bad and this is relevant to art. An artificial mind which has not themselves had to survive and seek satisfaction in this world and without even the basis to do so is never going to be able to create something meaningful to a human mind except by sheer accident. If a true AI does produce art, that art will be most meaningful to other AIs rather than to us. LLMs are mindless machines which can only imitate but don’t have the foundation to produce art themselves. The best it could ever do is challenge the kind of writing which is done with the least amount of effort which is most reliant on common tropes and cliches. The best it could be is a shadow of what we are capable of.
Conclusion
With all of that considered I actually do think that LLMs will become better at applying human language and may even be capable of replicating writing styles which we find appealing when they are being used to tell the stories we enjoy. They may even be able to generate ideas which we may find appealing as well. However, just like we might see or read something we thought we wanted but are left feeling hollow by I think there will always be the most important things missing from AI produced text and images when compared to art from any human.
The loan forgiveness was killed in the courts. The president doesn't have the power required to forgive student loans. As far as I know, the only way left to do loan forgiveness is through a bill passed through congress.
Bidens plan was designed to fail so they could blame the courts for his incompetence. Roberts mentioned in his piece that the wrong method of canceling debt was used, the exact opposite of what Biden was advised to use.
Democrats are ineffective at governing and need to stop being rewarded with reelection
Sure it’s possible it was “designed to fail” but not because the wrong method was used but because our current extremist supreme court would have used any excuse to stop it. It was based on the same HEROES Act that Trump’s pause of student loans was based on and the act explicitly says “waive or modify” loans so if Biden’s cancelation was illegal then so was Trump’s pause.
Here is a quote from the DOJ: “The plain text of the HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to” the federal student loan program, … We conclude that targeting relief towards those individuals who suffered financial hardship because of COVID -19 and who otherwise satisfy the requirements of the Act accords with the Act’s requirement that the waiver or modification “be necessary to ensure that” student loan recipients who are “affected” by a national emergency “are not placed in a worse position financially” with respect to their loans as a result.”
He purposely chose the wrong method is all anyone needs to hear. It doesn't matter what happens after that. Choosing the wrong method purposely makes him 100% to blame.
Oh my god [edited to be civil and respectful] even if democrats got literally nothing done they’d still be infinitely better than the entirely corrupt party of intentionally backsliding morons. At this point the republicans and their supporters are a big enough threat to our democracy that enough trademarked democratic infighting could actually bring this whole system down, and not in the way you’d want.
Where’s your knowledge of current events led you man? That was struck down by the Republican dominated Supreme Court. Biden fought hard to get it that far, and his attempts fall in line with the original HEROS Act of 2003. It was the conservatives who robbed you of student loan forgiveness, not Biden
I don't trust a bunch of crusty trust fund relics to regulate anything. You have to actually understand the technology to not make an absolute shit show of it, and they don't.
Vote out the crusty relics, promote candidates that actually understand tech or are willing to listen to people who do. Even if you don't believe the crusty relics can be voted out, they cannot live forever. Eventually they must be replaced.
I mean, is Warren now among the crusty relics who don't understand technology? That's the implication here.
If you read the article, it sounds like a bunch of very sound and reasonable first steps being outlined. Seems like this is being torpedoed without a second thought based on pretty flimsy reasoning.
If the concern is they won't go far enough... the counterfactual is doing nothing.
I probably wasn't being fair to Warren by using OP's words (crusty relics). I trust her far more than I trust most politicians, but I don't trust Lindsey Graham at all, or any other Republican for that matter. "Bipartisan" bills like this include the likes of SOPA, PIPA, COPPA, and I've mailed my senator to protest them all.
Around the world, people look at the US parties and don't see "left wing and right wing," they see "right wing and lunacy." Ultimately I want more regulation of big tech, I want to see the busting up of the AAAMM monopolies, but the political environment that would create that kind of effective, authoritative, savvy regulator... well, we don't live in that environment. So until our system and parties resemble the EU's, these kinds of bills are kneecapped by bribery disguised as political donations (a la Citizens United), regulatory capture, and the other Reagan-era failed policies that have brought us to our current position.
Like yeah, this part is great, especially considering Google's WEI proposal:
Specifically, the commission would ban the largest tech companies like Amazon, Meta, and Google from providing favorable treatment to their own products on their platforms to those of their competitors, otherwise called “self-preferencing.” Along with the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department, it would also be allowed to authorize merger proposals and review past ones retroactively.
I'll take what I can get for now, but the US has a very long way to go.
Well yeah, she's a huge advocate for consumer financial protections and crypto has the potential to delete all forms of consumer protections in financial transactions. This isn't a surprising position for her to take and it doesn't imply a lack of understanding of the tech. Just tells you that her politics don't line up well with the Venn diagram of anarchists and libertarians that think there's no downsides to crypto.
Considering the level of coordination it takes to make anything cohesive on those, let's see spez try and downplay us again with 'only a small percentage of users'.
Yep! I think it’s also a great example of how well a simple message can propagate. The whole emotional force of about six weeks of emotional drama has boiled down into eight letters, repeated by… what would you say, thousands?… of individuals.
I think everyone here should head back to Reddit to ensure the final canvas has as much black/white "FUCK SPEZ" as possible. Going back for a day isn't going to save Reddit from itself, but you can maybe save some Redditors from Reddit.
Apple don't let you change app icons outside of the app? I'm not sure what's stupider, apple or Reddit. On Android I can set my icon to whatever I like in my launcher.
I have not had a iPhone in a long time, so I am unsure of exactly how it works. But it has been a feature since iOS 14 to be able to change app icons on the home screen.
Then you are probably talking about shortcuts. The way it works is you make a small program with your icon, which just tells iOS to open the program you want. The problems with that are that it doesn't display the notification count, it only applies it on your Home Screen, it will show up separately when you search for your app (the original app and the app with your icon) and it will show an annoying pop up every time you open the app
I actually think they're cashing in on the media coverage the protests produced. And this article is proof it's worked. But the Verge were covering Reddageddon practically every day
theverge.com
Top