On the contrary. I want people to have their own opinions, and to buy the things that suit their tastes even if they seem silly to me.

And I want those things to have fair, consumer-friendly regulations applied to them.

And when companies try to abuse their consumers, and I want us to criticize the company rather than the consumer.

When you blame consumers for allowing antisocial tech into their lives, you’re doing free work for the tech barons.

Pretty nice way to bridge the gap between documentation and automation.

We really are obsessed with replicating any and all sci-fi cautionary tales, aren’t we?

Bob’s Burgers

I like how every single character is incredibly weird in at least one way, but their weirdness is usually a source of joy and hardly ever used as the butt of a joke.

Except for the last season. There are some lines that really feel like the writers talking to themselves about how they painted themselves into a corner.

I appreciate the reply! And I’m sure I’m missing something, but… Why can’t you just lie about the model you used?

Isn’t this still subject to the same problem, where a system can lie about its inference chain by returning a plausible chain which wasn’t the actual chain used for the conclusion? (I’m thinking from the perspective of a consumer sending an API request, not the service provider directly accessing the model.)

Also:

Any time I see a highly technical post talking about AI and/or crypto, I imagine a skilled accountant living in the middle of mob territory. They may not be directly involved in any scams themselves, but they gotta know that their neighbors are crooked and a lot of their customers are gonna use their services in nefarious ways.

Article had a lot of good content on the complexity of defining and evaluating “critical thinking” but only a couple surface-level things about AI.

So, I used to be a huge fan of this podcast, The Pessimists Archive, which catalogued all the times when people freaked out over stuff that seems silly today.

But the thing is: We’ve also failed to freak out sufficiently over some pretty important stuff, and people who were mocked at the time have later been proven to be right.

And then there’s also the paradox of risk management: Taking a risk seriously and working to mitigate it often makes the risk not materialize, making it look like the risk mitigation was a wasted effort.

All that is to say: You really should take each case on its own merits.

Reflecting on my previous experience with Reddit, Lemmy passes this test with flying colors.

On Reddit, I felt like I was gasping for air while being trampled by an army of trolls and dodging endless sponsored/astroturfed content. Lemmy feels like everyone is genuine. We might not all agree on the details, but I feel like we share 99% of the same basic moral framework and we’re trying to be good.

I do worry that it’s just because of its niche status and the barriers to entry. If Lemmy really pops off, it might be like the September that never ended.

I imagine things would take a nosedive

I hate this timeline.

Crazy idea:

If copyright was invented to prevent printers from scooping authors’ work and out-competing them for sales…

Maybe copyright should only apply if you’re trying to compete with the author?

So like, not if you’re just a lowly individual trying to keep up with the references all of society is making, or understand the world you live in.

A cheap ARM laptop.

Pinebooks have been sold out for ages, and then it’s a massive leap up to MNT Reform or Copilot+.

I just started watching eBay for used Pinebooks, but nothing has popped yet.

Edit: Actually, there are some decent options for Snapdragon 7/8 refurbs on Amazon. Mass market brands can be so hit or miss by model, so this’ll take some research, but it looks like there are 20-30 results to consider.

They are frequently interviewed.

Which means they are frequently asked: “Why’s everything fucked up?”

They can’t give the real answer, which is “ultra-rich people”.

So they give no answer at all (in which case you don’t hear about it) or they cite the Enemy Of The Day.

What a wild take.

Open up access for machines, but keep human access closed off?

In the age of sloppification, you’d think the correct move would be to preserve signal-to-noise ratio, by opening up human access — for read and write.

I hate these arguments that are like “We need to be the ones to ruin everything, cuz otherwise the e n e m y might ruin everything!”