What an awesome comparison.

I may be over thinking it, but that’s not what it reads like to me. Like at all.

The post doesn’t say “anyone defending a Nazi” is a Nazi. Which sure, makes sense. I agree.

The post says “anyone saying that you shouldn’t call a Nazi to those who disagree with you means they are by extension Nazis”. That assumes that calling someone a Nazi can never be wrong if they disagree with you and you are not a Nazi. Someone that is not a Nazi can disagree with someone that is not a Nazi. The post seems to try and create discord by saying that a witch hunt against Nazis is perfectly fine because Nazis are shit. And anyone against a witch hunt of Nazis means they are a Nazi. Well, I’m against all kind of witch-hunts because they are based on accusing whoever just out of hatred with very little way of fighting against it fairly.

Or to explain my meaning in a different way. I’m against the death penalty. That means that I don’t want any form of legal death penalty, even if someone is a Nazi. Does that mean now that I treat Nazis too nicely? I can see someone disagreeing with me or I could disagree with someone. They can call me a Nazi then I guess? Just because I’m against the death penalty? This post is in my opinion just shit trying to raigebait. I don’t see who could benefit from it, but surely there are possible reasons for it.

There’s a logic flaw in this post and that makes me feel uncertain if this is just ragebaiting or what… It certainly feels like it, and it is kinda worrisome and sad if we let this kinda shit content drive the platform usage into senseless insult throwing (I’m kinda expecting that I’ll be called a Nazi for not agreeing on what this post represents, precisely my point).

You can say “fuck Nazis” and I’d agree. Fuck them, hard with a cactus. If someone disagrees with “fuck Nazis” sure, you found the Nazi. I agree with that. If in a conversation someone is defending a Nazi ideology or some clear Nazi shit, yeah call them Nazis and anyone defending them are clearly aligned on that shit.

But then step two of the image makes no sense.

Watch for the “don’t call people who disagree with you Nazis” comments.

Saying fuck Nazis is not the same as calling someone who disagrees with you a Nazi. If someone would call someone a Nazi for disagreeing on some random topic, and someone says don’t call them Nazis just because they don’t agree with you, that doesn’t make them a Nazi. There is nuance here, what was it they disagreed with? It feels like the post is just trying to give way to the fact that if you call anyone a Nazi and they disagree that makes them even more Nazi. It the same shit as accusing someone of stealing and when they deny it you answer with “that’s what a thief would say”. Well yeah, but it is also what a non-thief would say. So it proofs nothing.

Can’t we just agree on hating Nazis and calling a Nazi to anyone making a Nazi salute or saying Nazi shit or defending Nazi shit? Can we agree that saying “don’t call people who disagree with you a nazi” doesn’t immediately imply they are Nazis? It doesn’t make any fucking sense, and I’d wish to see better content in Lemmy than this baity shit. Instead of this shit, post a nice image that says “fuck Nazis” with a middle finger as decoratiin, and I’m sure you will see less crap than in this post.

In other fantastic surprising news: Drug dealer criticizes drug addict’s plan to get clean

“It is bad for business!” - Drug dealer said - “How many jobs are lost by the unconscious actions of a self-centered drug addict? Families depend on them to have something to eat.”

I loved reading your insights on the tech! E ink is such a fascinating tech… Pity about the NDA though, I would love to hear a lot more!

The title is mentioning e-paper though and if I have understood correctly that could imply a different tech is being used here. So here’s what (I think) I know, e-paper is a broader category that includes other tech that is not e-ink but very low power screens, such as the screen used by the old smart watches Pebble, which had a color memory LCD that could achieve something like 20 fps or something like that? Just enough to create nice animations and fluid UI. Of course changing the screen meant higher consumption, but the LCD could keep the image by using a very low but non-zero energy.

Although it seems that e-paper and e-ink are commonly just mixed as if they would be the same, while to me e-ink is a type of e-paper. Do you feel my understanding is correct on how the tech is categorised and maybe the screen from the article could be memory LCD or something else that is not e-ink?

It’s so great to be able to find comments such as yours, unfortunately it feels uncommon in Lemmy specially when certain names are mentioned, the bias and willfulness to shit on those are making people a bit blindsided and easy to guide through bad data usage. My first thought reading the title was about the statistical value of the numbers given, which doesn’t detract from the actual quality or lack thereof of the vehicle. At the moment using elon musk or tesla in a title of an article will increase the traffic automatically. Which is why we constantly get every single shitty comment made by him reported with useless data.

Google is going to likely sell his AI tech to the military, so you know… They are all shit. Which shit smells worse is a useless comparison, they are all shit.

Details schmetails… At the end of the week he is probably super duper repenting and asks for forgiveness. What, you want a perfect human? Who hasn’t murdered someone on a bad week? Or raped? Or stolen? Or had an affair? Or all of it?

Hopefully not needed but just to be sure /s

Yeah, it makes it better and more reliable in harsh conditions, I agree, but driving has always been based on people looking where they go, so camera imagery is enough for driving. If it is not safe for a person, then it’s not safe for a car with only cameras. Plus only having cameras doesn’t mean you cannot use special equipment, IR cameras can improve visibility on harsh conditions too. Not that I mean they are used, but you know, it’s a matter of what we mean with “enough to drive”. Again, I want to emphasize that I agree, having LiDAR or other tech would be much much better.

Well, not to side with the fascist shithead, but you know, “broken clock…”. The thing is, camera vision is kinda enough… It’s an entirely different thing if it could be better, improved, safer, or whatever by adding LiDAR or other tech…

Yeah, he was listening, he listened and listened well. And what he learned is that there are sick people wasting resources he can take away.

There’s two points of consideration here, let’s see if I can make my point without a wall of text, I’m prone to those…

1. Anonimity: the fact that where you connect cannot know who exactly you are. This should be straightforward, anonimity should not be taken away, it is a core part of the internet in my opinion. It’s extremely important that we can express ourselves freely without fear of being persecuted. Despite the negative sides that it has, as those with ill intent will be harder to find (but not impossible). In this the common quote attributed to Franklin applies well in my opinion: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

2. Proof of personhood: basically the difficult task of making sure that the other end of an internet connection has a real person, and together with that, proof that it is different than others, the ability to know you are you and not someone else.

This is incredibly interesting as a technical problem to be solved, and I do agree with you that the internet as we know it is at risk if we don’t solve it properly. It is specially hard to solve if you try to guarantee anonimity (like I believe it should be).

The wikipedia has an article about it that I think gives a good idea about the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_personhood

Personally I have been quite carefully interested into the whole World ID solution, using a device called orb with open specifications that captures some data from your iris that should be unique per person, storing only an encrypted piece of information in a blockchain and on your device locally so that you can use it to identify yourself as a real unique person and only once, but wherever you use it, cannot know anything about you except that. There’s a lot of possible criticism to such a system, but insofar as I have checked and can understand, it seems like a legit solution. But I leave here the link for anyone interested enough to check it themselves: https://world.org/world-id

Yeah, and actually I would say with confidence we are actually better off. It’s true that unrealistic expectations is a big issue (well, might be more like, I think most realize that porn is not real after experiencing it so it’s not a big problem really for most), but at least we do have a good understanding of the possibilities and what is safe and what is not… At the very least we have a more openminded and informed point of view on sex and relationships. Which doesn’t mean either “let’s show porn to the kids” of course, but it’s such an overblown topic in society.

Let parents be the responsible ones of what kids watch, not the webpages…

Wtf… I heard of the wedding thing with the digital character but I had no clue he also had a life sized doll… I dont know why it somehow makes it even worse.

I find it kind of ironic how you complain about downvotes while supporting democracy. I’m not saying whether I agree or disagree with you, I’m not saying either if I think you are right or wrong. But just like in a democracy votes represent the opinion of those who decided to vote. Being right won’t mean you get the votes. You should just accept them and stop complaining about them.

It was already tough being in a world where it’s hard to see the difference between the onion articles and actual news. Now we’re on a completely new level where news can be the result of playing CAH. It’s kinda funny until you stop to think how terrible it is.

Google being evil and assholes doesn’t remove the fact that this person literally didn’t spend a second to check what they clicked.

Digital safety starts with everyone, despite if we need laws to regulate the asshole companies trying to mess with people’s lack of attention.

Well damn, thank you so much for the answer. That has gone well and beyond what I’d have called a great answer.

First of all I just wanted to acknowledge the time you put into it, I just read it and in order to make a meaningful answer for discussion I probably need to read your comment a couple more times, and consider my own perspective on those topics, and also study a few drops of information you gave where sincerely you lost me :D (being a neutral monist, and about Searle and such, I need to study a bit that area). So, I want to give an adequate response to you as well and I’ll need some time for that, but before anything, thanks for the conversation, I didn’t want to wait to say that later on.

Also, worth mentioning that you did hit the nail in the head when you summed up all my rambling into a coherent one question/topic. I keep debating myself about how I can support creators while also appreciating the usefulness of a tool such as LLMs that can help me create things myself that I couldn’t before. There has to be a balance somewhere there… (Fellow programmer brain here trying to solve things like if you are debugging software, no doubt the wrong perspective for such a complex context).

UBI is definitely a goal to be achieved that could help in many ways, just like a huge reform of copyright would also be necessary to remove all the predators that are already abusing creators by taking their legal rights on the content created.

The point you make of anthropomorphizing LLMs is absolutely a key point, in fact I avoid all I can mentioning AI because I believe it muddles the waters so much more than it should (but it’s a great way of selling the software). For me it goes the other way actually and I wonder how different we are from an LLM (oversimplifying much…) in the methods we apply to create something and where’s the line of being creative vs depending on previous things experienced and basing our creation in previous things.

Anyway, that starts getting a bit too philosophical, which can be fun but less practical. Respecting your other comment, I do indeed follow Doctorow, it’s fascinating how much he writes, and how clear he can expose ideas. It’s tough to catch up with him at times with so much content. I also got his books in the last humble bundle, so happy to buy books without DRM… I’ll try to think a bit more these days on these topics and see what I can come up with. I don’t want to continue rambling like a madman without setting some order to my own thoughts first. Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation.

I would love to hear your opinion on something I keep thinking about. There’s the whole idea that these LLMs are training on “available” data all over the internet, and then anyone can use the LLM and create something that could resemble the work of someone else. Then there’s the people calling it theft (in my opinion wrong from any possible angle of consideration) and those calling it fair use (I kinda lean more on this side). But then we have the side of compensation for authors and such, which would be great if some form for it would be found. Any one person can learn about the style of an author and imitate it without really copying the same piece of art. That person cannot be sued for stealing “style”, and it feels like the LLM is basically in the same area of creating content. And authors have never been compensated for someone imitating them.

So… What would make the case of LLMs different? What are good points against it that don’t end up falling into the “stealing content” discussion? How to guarantee authors are compensated for their works? How can we guarantee that a company doesn’t order a book (or a reading with your voice in the case of voice actors, or pictures and drawings, …) and then reproduces the same content without you not having to pay you? How can we differentiate between a synthetic voice trained with thousand of voices but not the voice of person A but creates a voice similar to that of A against the case of a company “stealing” the voice of A directly? I feel there’s a lot of nuances here and don’t know what or how to cover all of it easily and most discussion I read are just “steal vs fair use” only.

Can this only end properly with a full reform of copyright? It’s not like authors are nowadays very well protected either. Publishers basically take their creation to be used and abused without the author having any say in it (like in the case of spot if unpublished a artists relationship and payment agreements).

I just wanted to say, it’s refreshing to read a well argumented comment such as this one. It’s good to see every once in a while there are still some people thinking things through without falling for automatic hatred to either side of a discussion.