FriendOfDeSoto

I’ve been thinking about strategies to get Google to back down on this. And I think the most viable strategy is to let them know that we will all move to iOS if they go through with it. If they lock down their OS, then we might as well use the OG locked down OS and turn to Apple. We only have to make this convincing enough.

I don’t want to go to the dark side either. But as the light is going out on this side: I’m gonna need a new phone within the next 12-18 months. For the first time since ditching my blackberry I’m thinking about switching again. And for the first time ever I’m seriously thinking about an iPhone. All my purchases and what not be dammed. LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO, GOOGLE!

I hear you. I’d still be hesitant to let school age kids learn with an LLM companion. If the grownups think they’re talking with a sentient gigabyte, I think the danger is too great to expose kids to this. Which brings me to my big picture opinion: the general public doesn’t need to have access to most of these models. We don’t need to cook polar bears alive to make 5 second video memes, slop, or disinformation. You can just read your emails. No one needs ChatGPT plan their next trip. No one should consider an LLM a substitute for a trained therapist. There are good applications in the field of accessibility, probably medical as well. The rest can stay in a digital lab until they’ve worked out how not to tell teenagers to kill themselves, not to eat rocks to help your digestion, or insert any other bullshit so-called AI headline you have read recently here. It’s not good for people, the environment, and it’s forming a dangerous bubble that will have shades of subprime mortgages 2007/8 when it bursts. The negatives outweigh the positives.

Gosh, are we dumb the world over. Maybe these chat bots are just lowering the threshold for what used to be the “I’m hearing voices or communicate with the supernatural” type of people. Thanks to a chat bot, you can now be certifiable much sooner.

YT and TT are platforms that breed weird quirk uniformity. They all grab your attention with the same phrases (“you’ll never believe …”, “what about [insert something outrageous]? Let me explain …” etc.) For a while, everybody had the same Ikea shelves behind them crammed with shit. Then I think we moved on to neon signs. It used to be fashionable to show off your expensive big microphone, probably much to the delight of its manufacturer. And that’s why I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the manufacturer paid some influencers to hold the tiny mike prominently in the shot like they would hold a dog poop bag filled with poop from a stranger’s dog. And then it was copied.

I’m not talking about models. That in itself is not a YouTube competitor.

I’m not aware if they have announced a platform for this type of video. OpenAI and Meta have and that’s what I meant.

I fear this will be an uphill battle for YT. I have this gut feeling that Meta and OpenAI here are employing the flooding the zone strategy to hurt and maybe displace YT. The sheer flood of slop with the occasional enjoyable nugget of content flooding YT from the pAIrates will be harder to filter out, clog up servers, and users like you and I will get annoyed and gradually consume less content. YT loses market share and some new platform can move in for the kill, operated by Meta, OpenAI and/or other such reputable companies. It’s not easy to monetize this crap, which is a loss leader at this point. It doesn’t look to me like enough people will subscribe to these services to be financially viable. They have to find other ways. So pivot to video 2.0 - this time with so-called AI! Sigh.

If you feel a multi-million dollar need to influence public opinion, mostly in the US, because your current actions have made your approval ratings drop off a cliff, maybe this is more the time to reconsider the actions that led you here?

Other than that, this is probably par for the course now. Russia is surely doing a similar thing. And whichever military conflict the US might find itself in in the hopefully far flung future, they would do the same probably. First casualty of war and all that.

Great headline

You are making assumptions here. Twenty-something year olds are allowed to date anyone older they like, the only restrictions that apply go the other way age-wise. And dating older people doesn’t automatically lead to self-destruction. So what’s your point?

You have to phrase it as a question to get the money. When you buzz in you get something odd like 7 seconds to answer the question. If you just say “Eiffel Tower” then Ken Jennings will now probably just stare at you expectingly to rephrase your reply in that time. I think in the past Alex Trebek may have prompted candidates to rephrase their non-question answers but I haven’t seen that happening in a while (but I don’t watch it that regularly either so 🧂).

The whole point of the show is that the standard quiz show mechanic question->answer gets put on its head. The clue on the wall is the answer and the candidates have to provide a question it answers.

Since you referenced “trash mods” on reddit in this thread: I have a feeling your post may also fall foul of forum rules here. There is a question in it but most of the post isn’t about that. So don’t be surprised if a non-trashy lemmy mod comes in to mod it away.

This is not criticism; I feel very similarly about the big picture to what you wrote. Trump is not a Mao lover. He would have to know who that was first. And I think communist Chinese history is one of his many blank spots.

I don’t think so, I have witnessed so.

My word choices have given you the impression of a scheming Machiavellian teacher who reenacts the Spanish Inquisition on the boy until his classmates pelt him to death with rotten eggs. That’s on me, it’s not what I meant. I think I’ve added enough clarification in this thread at this point. So I won’t go into it again.

The opinion of one teacher, one that due to the question they asked initially and the forum they asked it in, and a few down votes are, I feel, not enough to call my argument dumb. Never mind the more personal attack that followed. Tackle the ball, not the player. If you want me to change my mind, that is.

There is a whole field of study for this, pedagogy. I am sure the first chapter of the book isn’t “kids are ruthless. The end.” I remain unconvinced that my approach, where my suggestion was preconditioned on many things to have happened first, is the worst one until I hear something that isn’t that or teetering on the edge of name calling.

It’s an enumeration of if-phrases. “If the parents don’t support the teacher” is just the first condition of many. And some things you may have to infer, like if the teacher had to talk to the parents and got cold shouldered, I think you can presume the teacher has already talked to the student too. I’m not gonna go as far as saying my post was immaculately written and presented. I would go as far as saying the options presented were at the bottom of the list. No support from the parents, maybe not even school leadership, cannot use bitter taste spray for insurance reasons, etc.

If a teacher telling a kid to get their feet off the table, to stop shooting spit wads at the row in front of them, to stop rocking back their chair because they might tip over and fall - if all these situations are okay for a teacher to say out loud in front of the class: “Kevin, stop it!” - and I think they are - then telling the kid not to chew on communally shared erasers is no different. Claiming this will immediately lead to bullying or just the threat that it might do is to an extent quixotic to me. If teachers will not assert their authority ever for fear of what the chaos kids will do, they might as well pack it in then.

Your office comparisons are insignificant here. Elementary school is a different sport entirely. There is a difference between coworkers sharing an office hierarchy and the power, responsibility, and maturity differential students/teacher, never mind the fact that offices shouldn’t employ 9yos.

OP has weighed in against the suggestion anyway. I’ll defer to them because they know more about this case than you or I.

You have inadvertently hit the nail on the head. They just call it socialism. There are several shades of poverty, for different reasons. One shade is due to the fact that a lot of services, like welfare, education, and medical, are only available to you in your hometown, probably the one you were born in. But if you have migrated from bf nowhere Gansu province to a big city where the jobs are, you rid yourself of that safety net. It’s hard/costly to change this hometown registration so most don’t and become quasi undocumented workers in their own country. And they are the ones who work insane hours in shitty and dangerous work conditions and it’s then who will look for anything to save a yuan.

It’s been a while since I’ve been to China. But even in the 2000s it was not uncommon to have to pay for toilet paper at a vending machine. Not at all public facilities but the more local you went, the fewer tourists would be there, the more this happens. So getting roll for watching an ad is an improvement.

And as the article points out, they cannot have nice things, i.e. free sandpaper toilet roll, because people will just steal it. I feel like this becomes exponentially less dystopian when you frame it as you can either have no paper at all or watch the ad/pay for it.

And there is another cultural difference. The Chinese are more like the Romans when it comes to these bodily functions. Much more willing to take care of it communally or at a hole in the ground surrounded by a thigh high “modesty” barrier. So asking an attendant for extra roll is something that the majority of Chinese would have less of a problem with, I think.

In my mind, it was never a hype. It was something they wanted hyped but - and of course I can only speak for myself - I never was sitting on the edge of my seat. It’s the technology version of new wonder drug could cure cancer. And then you read the story and reality dwarfs the vision quite quickly. I thought blockchain was a much bigger deal hype-wise. And that had all the oxygen drawn out by so-called AI.

Quantum computing is a threat because if it became mainstream usable today it could render the entire password based login system hackable in a flash, probably breaking the internet. There are two things to consider though. It isn’t usable today. And the big companies that do a lot of the research have a vested interest in not breaking the internet. So we see passkeys today and other forms of authentication will follow before QC could become a reality - if in our lifetimes or if ever - who knows.

This is something the parents should do - along being in the driver’s seat of correcting this behavior in their 9yo. In times of teachers crowd funding classroom supplies, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest “throw money at it” to a teacher. It’s not going to cost $5 just once and that’s it. If you have to beg for boardmarkers in general, this will be a line item that matters.