Kinda like Krikkit, but except for a close knit community of people who can sing, and sing about how much they love their family and whatnot in addition to singing about how much they have to destroy the universe, it's just a bunch of stuck up weirdos who don't like themselves and each other, and have no goal other than somehow, magically, getting away from who and what they are. People where the idea of them singing a happy, compassionate tune conjures something involving motion capture or deepfakes.
Why are we suffering fools steering us into the worst of all possible worlds? Are we hoping for some kind of integer overflow?
> I see this too often. But, realistically users do not care about the harvesting as it is unseen and behind the scenes.
And when it's brought up where people do know, there's always these attempts at gatekeeping by speaking for the average user like a priest would speak for God.
The person who asked that cares, and didn't ask "the average, realistic user", because you can't ask an abstract concept questions.
Never trust user input. The users already can't modify the server.
And what actual applications did you have in mind that warrant throwing everybody under the bus? (by that I mean some applications (allegedly) need it, so it gets forced on everyone)
And how is that necessary? It's a convenience feature, nothing more. You might as well trust your bank with your biometric data directly, and leave me and others out of it either way. Even IF there was a real need for a mobile device with which general computing is not possible, that would not justify killing it everywhere just so people who do need it can "just use their phone".
That the laziest of us don't mind and the worst of us want something is not a respectable argument for anything, ever.
So first of all, usability features are security features. There is the classic example of an uncrackable 18 character random password string that only results in frequent password reset attempts and the bank’s support staff getting totally overwhelmed.
We can have a discussion about FaceID specifically, but “convenience” is not considered trivial within the security sphere.
Second, I work for a (very large) bank, and you actually do not want to trust them with your biometric data directly. You can be absolutely assured of the privacy of your biometric data with the bank, better than with a Silicon Valley tech company. But I would not trust the bank’s data scientists to come up with a model that will not have an extremely high rate of false positives and negatives.
The reality is, if such an initiative was started at a bank, it would be shuttered after years of delays.
What claim are you talking about? The claim is that she was denied her rights.
What she did beforehand would only be relevant if it could somehow suspend those rights.
The argument for that being the case is that she doesn't say, therefore we can assume she did... something... that is sufficient to suspend her rights; without being able to name even an example.
I think the way blocking gets used and then bragged about to the personal bubble on BS (I wouldn't know about Twitter) is kind of pathetic, but at the same time, I do not mind getting blocked, or put on any of those shitlists, because that leaves me with the people who are either insane, kinda cool, or both.
Like it takes anything, at all, to get labeleled mutually exclusive types of non-person by randos on social media. Sure.
You're kinda demonstrating it. I wasn't "bragging about being blocked", I said what I actually did say instead; but that's enough for you it seems. But even as you're doing it, I'm somehow a bad person for pointing out how lame it is. Nah.
Large surveys and platform studies show that women, especially younger women, and racial/ethnic minorities are disproportionately targeted, with particularly high rates for Black women and other women of color on Twitter/X-like platforms.
On Twitter, Amnesty International found that Black women were 84% more likely than white women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets, and women of color were 34% more likely than white women to be targeted.
Pew found that women are more likely than men to say they have experienced certain severe forms of online harassment, especially sexual harassment and stalking, and that younger women are the most vulnerable group.
Online abuse is widespread, but it is not evenly distributed; it falls more heavily on women, especially women of color, and on other marginalized groups.
You're out of your element, dude. I'm sure you know tons about Clojure, or cap tables, but you're spouting off unfounded bullshit in a field you haven't bothered to study. You're perpetuating a dangerously unrealistic mythology.
> you're spouting off unfounded bullshit [..] you're perpetuating a dangerously unrealistic mythology.
Such as? Name it. I'm really curious, since none of what you just wrote I didn't already know, and none of it is relevant to my comment. I don't even know what you're arguing against because you won't let on.
Every time this gets repeated without a shred of evidence I have to think of the "beheaded babies" thing. "Feel better about the crimes against humanity you see us doing and bragging about by reading this spam email from a Nigerian prince once again, this time with even more pomp and even less details, even less pretense of actually caring or being honest."
To me this doesn't seem like a step towards those foundations, but another layer of of loss of agency. You can run "a" model locally, but you cannot make it locally (at least not for the purpose of just talking software into existence). You need to slurp up all the internet first, so to speak. And even if you could do that, you still depend on people putting new things onto the internet for you to slurp up. So is it really my software? What if it breaks or I want a new feature and AI corp nuked my account? How much did I learn during my time having it done for me?
And before anyone mentions it, I don't think the fact that I need a compiler and a manual and some example software to learn from is quite on the same level. I might be wrong but I would need some convincing.
i think "self-hosted", "home" or "company"/"office" should be the term we use, instead of "local", since
1. every LLM is _local_ in relation to the location the storage and/or the computers hosting/using it
2. the LLM running in your home is only _local_, until u step out of the door, but if you have some tailscale or zerotier VPN setup, u can still access it _remote_ly...
How does any of that impact a user who just has a specific task they want to accomplish and who doesn't have a CS degree?
Is it "their" software? Sure, if it meets their needs. What if the AI changes? Who cares, I already have the software. All the what ifs are solved by taking the current code, stuffing into into any AI you like today, and getting the new version.
As a user, this all sounds like a great deal. Devs can continue wringing their hands over code quality and long term support and architecture and preferred framework, meanwhile the user who had an itch got it scratched and didn't need nor care about any of those things.
> What if the AI changes? Who cares, I already have the software. All the what ifs are solved by taking the current code, stuffing into into any AI you like today, and getting the new version.
It's just dismissing the question. If the AI changes, just use one that didn't change. If it gets 1000x more expensive, just use one that remains cheap.
Apart from the fact that without new input to learn from, things will probably stagnate in new exciting ways, on top of the stagnation, bloat and slop we worked so hard to make a culture over the last decades.
> Devs can continue wringing their hands over code quality and long term support and architecture and preferred framework
I mentioned none of those things.
> the user who had an itch got it scratched and didn't need nor care about any of those things.
And I don't care about that user when it comes to the question of my agency and autonomy. It's like people discussing how to make cats do tricks and someone going "just get a dog".
> The commander of the Einsatzkommando reported two days later:
> > The difficulties resulting from such a large scale action—in particular concerning the seizure—were overcome in Kiev by requesting the Jewish population through wall posters to move. Although only a participation of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 Jews had been expected at first, more than 30,000 Jews arrived who, until the very moment of their execution, still believed in their resettlement, thanks to an extremely clever organization.
"no prepared specialized infrastructure, just bussing them to a ravine and shooting them" ... yet "extremely clever organization", a special order posted 3 days prior, which the victims followed. How do you envision such a scenario playing out in Iran?
And why not simply show the evidence? Whoever makes the claim, unless they're lying, is basing the claim on something. So where is it?
> That tells me it's not about the music but about something they believe about generated music.
Or it's something they know, namely there being nobody at the other end.
By your logic, a love letter you get from a real person and one that was generated would be the same thing, because "only the words should matter". To me it doesn't make sense to say that about music in precisely the same sense I assume you agree it wouldn't make sense about a love letter.
> Why do you suggest that people generating music aren't listening to it?
Because it's possible, and considering the vast amounts that get generated, a mathematical certainty that it does happen. Whereas people who compose music actually hearing what they compose, or if they're deaf, they experience it some other way. That is also a certainty.
Why this push to somehow "overcome" that? Why can't generated stuff be for people who like it, and the people who don't like it say that once, and that's the end of the discussion and simply gets respected as boundaries humans set for themselves?
> Or it's something they know, namely there being nobody at the other end.
But until they were told otherwise, they did not know and did not care.
> Why this push to somehow "overcome" that? Why can't generated stuff be for people who like it, and the people who don't like it say that once, and that's the end of the discussion and simply gets respected as boundaries humans set for themselves?
I'm not sure. I think it's close-minded but I understand and can respect the feeling. What I don't respect is when people start saying that people who like this music are somehow listening to something less human or other variatations that you can see in this very thread. For some reason, we as humans care about this, though you're right, we should just be able to accept both sides.
Why are we suffering fools steering us into the worst of all possible worlds? Are we hoping for some kind of integer overflow?
reply