A bigger problem is the location, office building are not located in residential areas and as such lack a lot of facilities, e.g. no supermarkets and other shops in walking/cycling distance, no MD/pharmacy and other healthcare facilities, no schools or playgrounds, etc. etc.
I agree that it’s not great but it’s better than nothing. Plus some of those services could eventually appear or be setup even in the same building itself.
I would have agreed up until about a week ago. There was a news story a few days ago about how there are people in LA renting various vehicles parked on public streets for people to live in. Then another story about how there are actually thousands of such “rentals” in LA. I think highrise slums might be a notch or two down from the current dystopia.
It seems like a lot of people are talking about twitter even if mostly negative. I see it in the news and online way more often than before Elon bought it. And we are talking about it now ;)
For sure, hands are generally getting better, but they are still a persistent problem. Mostly you need a prompter who isn’t lazy and is actually looking at the outputs.
Well, user traffic has returned to normal, but we also have to consider that it’s just traffic. Some of that traffic is also a bunch of people talking about Reddit, protesting, etc.
That being said, I don’t think Reddit will die from this, but it doesn’t need to in order for the Fediverse to succeed. All it needs is to push enough people onto federated services and kickstart it, just like Twitter did with Mastodon. We aren’t going to all switch overnight, it will be a gradual process.
This is a good point. Because even websites which replaced others, oftentimes the older one is still there. Like even Digg still alive after Reddit got more popular. Some people say Tumblr's dead but its really not especially for specific interests like games. The success of you isnt based on the failure of someone else, and its important to remember and not become cross because reddit still has users. Especially its been only like 10 days and a lot have already gone onto other sites.
Ok, those places are still "alive", but have you actually gone to them lately? Digg is literally run by an ad bot who creates 99% of posts. You have to search down the list for a post that actually has comments. And of the comments that exist, it looks like a Facebook conversation with a few people, one of which is likely a bot.
Users are the content creators, whether through posts or comments. Pissing off a large portion of them will just leave the ones that don't care about content, they just want something...anything...delivered to them endlessly. If the good users abandon the site, then Reddit will slowly turn into Digg, a link aggregator run by bots serving SEO content to users that contribute nothing more than "nice picture!". And that's really sad when you consider what the place once was...just like it's sad to see Digg now.
I'm not angry with Reddit because it will survive. I'm angry with Reddit because of what I've lost at the hands of management that turned their backs on me. While their are alternatives that cover some of what I've lost, I know I'll never get back some of it.
Digg didn't "die" from a single change. It bled users over the course of multiple changes. The size of the waves was based on how many users were affected. The big wave was when they redesigned the whole interface.
I don't think Reddit is done changing, so we'll see where things go. I know that eventually they'll kill off the old interface, and that will lose a large portion of users as well.
My own reddit traffic has dropped right off since I discovered Lemmy. For now this place has the feel of the early internet: democratic, distributed and friendly. It really makes clear how repugnant Reddit has become.
Same for me. Lemmy still has some rough edges but even the apps that are available now are really good as they are. Improvements are happening at amazing speed. What we currently have is quite good in my opinion and this is the worst it will ever be, as we’ll have improvements on top of improvements, most apps and lemmy itself are open source, I believe that soon, instead of us feature pairing with reddit, it will be them trying to chase us up.
What's nice to me is that I'm not replying to this on Lemmy. I'm able to use my preferred UI (Kbin) and interact with the same content as everyone else, connecting more people together. It makes it feel more collaborative.
I noticed the same thing about Mastodon vs Twitter. When I visited Twitter I would come away angry. (This was true both pre and post Elon.) When I visited Mastodon I would come away happier and with some interesting ideas. The tone is totally different. I chalk it up to the absence of engagement-maximizing algorithms, which tend to select for toxicity because that's what gets people to spend the most time on the site.
Exactly. People also forget that reddit didn't spring up overnight, and the great digg migration wasn't a one-time en masse thing either. It was a slow bleed for 2~3 years even after digg's v4 redesign. Those that stayed on digg turned it into one huge circlejerk about how reddit sucked and it would never take off, and people would end up back on digg eventually ... EXACTLY like what is happening on reddit now. It will take time for Feddi to grow, but it will as long as dedicated users stick around and create interesting content
Indeed. These days on any social media, there’s a critical threshold for user generated content creation. Different for every platform and as social media expectations change over time. I think the fediverse has a real shot at sustainable growth thanks to Twitter and Reddit enshittification. Being able to see new content daily or even hourly as a measure of critical mass seems to have been reached here and it’s beautiful to witness!
A lot of that traffic is people googling something and finding the answer on reddit and then getting on with their lives. it will probably be that way for quite a while.
It’ll be a much easier feat for Lemmy too. When people leave Twitter for Mastodon, they have to give up following their favourite celebrities. Twitter entirely depends on WHO is on the platform. Reddit doesn’t. All Lemmy needs to compete is have enough content to have comparable engagement. If enough users are posting and engaging with content on Lemmy, it’s a viable alternative to anyone. Especially if Lemmy has good apps (because Reddit sure doesn’t).
I hate that I’m still adding to Reddit traffic but every once and a while I still do (search item) + Reddit because it’s still better than just googling something and getting 100 terrible SEO articles about a topic.
For example. I wanted to look for DIY dog toys. I got hundreds of results with crappy clickbait, and ridden websites. Did +Reddit and got some great results.
Once I can do +Lemmy and get decent results my traffic will fall hard… I guess I gotta be part of that change, offering threads of my own with information I know. But it just seems homeless some days.
Honestly, I haven't seen as big of a push for redditors to move elsewhere.
It feels like Plan A was to protest the changes and when that plan didn't work, there was no Plan B in sight. I saw someone suggesting that perhaps, at this point, it would be best to consider moving to another platform but the reality is that outside ModCoord I didn't really see a coordinated effort to do that.
While everyone is likely to suffer in the long-run in terms of the quality of content, outside of losing access to some very cool apps the biggest victims of the whole ordeal have been the mods actually standing up to Reddit's tyrannical behavior.
Reddit is beyond redemption, but for many people reddit is home and the plan now seems to be to comply with the orders and try to keep what semblance of normalcy and power each mod has rather than realizing that the point at which their votes, voices and free labor matter is over.
This. I love the science SpaceX is doing. I love the EV momentum Tesla created (even if their own products are proving to be less than stellar, no pun intended).
I thought they were just adding activitypub to some products / making their own accounts but
However, the company is aiming to tackle some of the obstacles that have prevented users from joining and participating in the fediverse so far, including the technical hurdles around onboarding, finding people to follow and discovering interesting content to discuss.
What Mozilla wants to accomplish, then, is to help reconfigure the Mastodon onboarding process so that when someone — including a publisher or creator — joins its instance (or the fediverse in general) they’re able to build their audience with more ease.
Now THAT would be cool. If the browser had a built in way to handle some of this stuff, it would be a lot simpler to deal with some of the issues. I’d love to learn more
Three percent of all browsers is a fuckton of users, considering that includes mobile users who are going to be less likely to change their browser then desktop users. There is an estimated 6.92 billion smartphone users. Three percent of that is more users than there are people in the United States.
It does make sense. Most of the android users directly use google search bar and dont even bother to open a browser directly if its one shot query or not using multiple tabs.
It makes a lot of sense to me to just have minimum standards for Fediverse instances, and then anyone who wants to host users can be a default instance for a period of time and just rotate through them Round Robin-style so nobody gets slammed with too many new users at once.
Edge allows you to “follow” YouTube channels outside of the website itself, not sure how deep that integration goes though as I’ve never bothered to use it.
Also this is the idea behind Grayjay, where creators would be able to have a “universal identity” across platforms.
For now it’s mostly a YouTube and some other video streaming sites alternative.
I think you’re right that the best response is no response, but the protests do have an effect beside driving traffic. Investors won’t want to be involved in a company at war with its userbase, so if protests are loud and long enough it could mess us reddits IPO plans. So for the users who just aren’t ready to give up reddit, spamming protest comments is probably their best bet.
Agreed. The people who are pitching r/place as "entertainment" are people who want to stay engaged with reddit and enjoy drama. I'm done with Reddit now that they've killed Apollo and don't care to hear about it anymore.
Yep is anyone is still a user logging in anyway then may as well.do.this...but to log.in especially for it, when you otherwise would not have logged a Reddit hit will give spez what he wants
All the protests will do nothing but drive traffic.
Which is the EXACT reason they’re doing it again all of sudden. This was not scheduled by any means but the dumpster fire for the past weeks causes them to grasp for straws. It’s a pathetic attempt to get users back that their psychopathic methods drove away.
Idk why the heck you just got downvoted into oblivion for pointing out the irony in google calling this a “privacy feature.” Good old reddit moment it seems.
lol it’s no worries. actually I have the privilege of being bot-downvoted by CCP sympathizers because of comments on this post lemmy.world/post/2338419, there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole.
I don't particularly care about your or his internet spats or attempt to control the all important narrative on lemmy. You are the one giving him rent free space in your brain and on your keyboard though.
See WarmSoda!? This is why I shouldn’t have stopped. People ask this question, your advice was wrong! I’m going to continue what I was doing before you called me stupid.
edit: The link points to lemmy.world which is intermittently getting DDOS’ed.
Please ignore my negative initial vote score, as I have the privilege of being bot-downvoted by CCP sympathizers because of comments on this post lemmy.world/post/2338419, there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole.
This "technology" community is quickly becoming just as bad as the one on reddit.
The insane ravings and personal drama of a lunatic billionaire isn't news about technology.
Even news about Twitter itself isn't technology news. Twitter is a business that sells services. They don't make or contribute to any types of technology.
The only thing that Twitter technology related is that their business operates on the internet. That's it. Chewy.com or NYTimes.com is just as much "technology" as Twitter is.
Yeah this is just the new Society Pages of the rich and famous (ie people whose job is managing your attention).
Even my beloved Paris Marx, of the Tech Won’t Save Us podcast (recommended), can’t help themself from constantly crowing about Musk’s latest tort against humanity.
They don’t make or contribute to any types of technology.
That part isn’t completely true. When they created the bootstrap framework it changed how many people built websites. They can and have contributed to technology. However, your point is valid that news about Twitter is business news.
That would require them to care enough to figure out how to verify if something is a registered charity and what they are called in each country. Some countries don’t even have the concept of registered charity in any form.
Sure, and you do that by looking up the tax status. As long as it’s considered a non-profit by the government, that’s it. That’s as non-political as you can get.
Well you simply couldn’t be more wrong about that. The NFL was a charity not too long ago. I’m sure there are Christian conversion therapy “charities”, too. “Charity” is nothing more than a tax status. You can make a charity for anything, so long as you keep your finances appropriately.
I assume the NFL is/was a 501c6 tax exempt organization since it calls out football leagues specifically.
You’d be looking for 501c3 organizations which does include churches and other dubious religious affiliated organizations but not all federal non-profits.
It’s still not political since there’s no active choice to accept some and reject others, it’s purely based on tax status. That’s it, no politics, just facts.
The political quandary does not come from the tax status, it comes from the service they provide. If you think abortion is not a political topic then you need to dig your head out of the sand.
I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m saying that if their policy is to not look at the services they provide and only their tax status, they can stay away from the whole political angle. But as soon as they block just one tax-exempt org, then it becomes political.
Correct, which is what has happened here. The user above I think is misunderstanding the situation, or is perpetuating right-wing drivel. Due to the state of political discourse in the States, I’m going to take a guess it’s the latter, because I’ve learned not to give the benefit of the doubt.
There can be nothing new or original out of AI because all of its inputs are stolen from what already exists. Real creativity comes solely from humans. Also, that clip - the song, singing, and visual - is dreadful in every way.
This needs to be hammered into techbro’s heads until they shut the fuck up about the so-called “AI” revolution.
I’ve been doing a lot of using, testing, and evaluating LLMs and GPT-style models for generating code and text/prose. Some of it is just general use to see how it behaves, some has been explicit evaluation of creative writing, and a bunch of it is code generation to test out how we need to modify our CS curriculum in light of these new tools.
It’s an impressive piece of technology, but it’s not very creative. It’s meh. The results are meh. Which is to be expected since it’s a statistical model that’s using a large body of prior work to produce a reasonable approximation of what it’s seen before. It trends towards the mean, not the best.
You have to know how to operate the oven to reheat store bought pie. Generative LLMs are machines like ovens, and turning the knobs is not creativity. Not operating the oven correctly gets you Sharon Weiss results.
I’m excited for how these tools will be used by human creators to accomplish things they could never do alone, and in that aspect it is a revolutionary technology. I hate that their marketing calls it “AI” though, the only intelligence involved is the human user that creates prompts and curates results.
and a bunch of it is code generation to test out how we need to modify our CS curriculum in light of these new tools.
I'm curious if you've gotten anything decent out of them. I've tried to use it for tech/code questions, and it's been nothing but disappointment after disappointment. I've tried to use it to get help with new concepts, but it hallucinates like crazy and always give me bad results, some of the time it's so bad that it gives me answers I've already told it we're wrong.
Yeah, I’ve just set up a hotkey that says something like “back up your answer with multiple reputable sources” and I just always paste it at the end of everything I ask. If it can’t find webpages to show me to back up its claims then I can’t trust it. Of course this isn’t the case with coding, for that I can actually run the code to verify it.
GPT-4 is quite impressive, and the dedicated code LLMs like Codex and Copilot are as well. The latter must have had a significant update in the past few months, as it’s become wildly better almost overnight. If trying it out, you should really do so in an existing codebase it can use as a context to match style and conventions from. Using a blank context is when you get the least impressive outputs from tools like those.
I've used gpt 3/3.5, bing, bard and copilot, and I'm not super stoked. Copilot gave me PS DSC items that don't actually exist, which was my most recent attempt at using a LLM.
I might see about figuring out if it can hook into my vs code instance so it's a bit smarter at some point.
That’s where some of the significant advances over the past 12 months of research have been, specifically around using the fine tuning phase to bias towards excellence. The biggest advance there has been that capabilities in larger models seem to be transmissible to smaller models by feeding in output from the larger more complex models.
So while you are correct that the pretrained models come out with a regression towards the mean, there are very promising recent advances in taking that foundation and moving it towards excellence.
Except that it’s wrong… AI is capable of creativity. It created the artist name. It’s clearly not a very developed or robust sense of creativity because it clearly just hashed up the name Hanna Montana, and the song is probably likewise just a hashed up existing song, but I’m guessing it probably did a better job of creating an original work than vanilla ice…
I’m sorry, anyone who says these so-called “AI” are capable of creativity are being hoodwinked by marketing. This is an algorithmic probability engine, it doesn’t think and it doesn’t have an imagination. It just regurgitates probabilistic responses from its large data set.
... what do you think imagination is? A gift from God? The probabilities are probably more chaotic, and the data set more biased... but they're the basic foundation of human imagination.
Machine based "creativity" is nascent, and far less unique... but that doesn't mean it isn't a form of creativity.
The human imagination also involves the phenomenal experience. You do not just record the data coming at you and regurgitate it, you experience it and then your experience further changes the data itself. We call this “subjectivity” and it’s where creativity comes from.
I am not saying that machine creativity is impossible. What I’m saying is these LLMs are not creative because they don’t even know what they’re doing and they don’t even know “they” are doing it. There’s no “there” there. No more creative than rolling dice.
and experience is ongoing learning, so if an LLM were training on things after the pretraining period then that’d allow it to be creative in your definition?
but in that case, what’s the difference between doing that all at once, and doing it over a period of time?
experience is just tweaking your neurons to make new/different connections
Experience is ongoing learning through the subjective self. When you experience the color red you do not just record it with your photoreceptors, and your experience of the color red is different from mine because we don’t just record wavelengths of light. We don’t just continue to learn from continual exposure to new data, we also continue to learn from generating our own data. In this way our subjective experience is qualitative, not simply quantitative. I don’t just see the specific light wavelengths, I experience the “redness” of red.
When LLM is trained on that kind of data it just starts to hallucinate. This is promising! I think the hallucination phenomenon is actually a precursor to creativity and gives us great insights into the nature of subjective experience. In a sense, my phenomenal experience of the color red is actually much like a hallucination where I am also able to experience the color’s “warmth” and “boldness”. Subjectivity.
it’s only qualitative because we don’t understand it
when an LLM “experiences” new data via training, that’s subjective too: it works its way through the network in a manner that’s different depending on what came before it… if different training data came before it, the network would look differently and the data would change the network as a whole in a different way
When an LLM feeds on its own outputs, though, it quickly starts to hallucinate. I think this is actually closer to creativity, but it betrays the fundamental flaw behind the technology - it does not think about its own thoughts and requires a curator to help it create.
I’ll believe something is an AI when it can be its own curator and not drive itself insane.
that’s a lack of understanding of concepts though, rather than a lack of creativity… curation requires that you understand the concept that you’re trying to curate: this looks more like a dog than this; this is a more attractive sunset than this
current LLMs and ML don’t understand concepts, which is their main issue
id argue that it kind of does “think about its own thoughts” to some degree: modern ML is layered, and each layer of the net feeds into the next… one layer of the net “thinks about” the “thoughts” of the previous layer. now, it doesn’t do this as a whole but neither do we: memories and neural connections are lossy; heck even creating a creative work isn’t going to turn out exactly like you thought it in your head (your muscle memory and skill level will effect the translation from brain to paper/canvas/screen)
but even we hallucinate in the same way. don’t look at a bike, and then try and draw a bike… you’ll get general things like pedals, wheels, seat, handlebars, but it’ll be all connected wrong. this is a common example people use to show how our brains aren’t as precise and we might like to think… drawing a bike requires a lot of very specific things to be in very specific places and that’s not how our brain remembers the concept of “bike”
current LLMs and ML don’t understand concepts, which is their main issue
This is a relevant issue to the question!
If I take a dose of LSD and paint the colors I hallucinate, is that creative? I’d argue it’s not.
Only when I, the subjective self, curate my own thoughts and sensations can I engage in a creative process. I can think about my own thoughts without going insane (how do the colors make me feel, what do the colors mean?) and that’s a fundamental part of creativity and intelligence. Conceptualization is key to subjectivity.
I don’t think this is far off. I just don’t think we’re there, either, and we should be skeptical of marketing hype.
i don’t agree with that definition of creative… there’s lots of engineering work that’s creative: writing code and designing systems can be a very creative process, but doesn’t involve feeling… it’s problem solving, and thats a creative process. you’re narrowly defining creativity as artistic expression of emotion, however there’s lots of ways to be creative
now, i think thats a bit of a strawman (so i’ll elaborate on the broader point), but i think its important to define terms
i agree we should be skeptical of marketing hype for sure: the type of creativity that i believe ML is currently capable of is directionless. it doesn’t understand what it’s creating… but the truth lies somewhere in the middle
ML is definitively creating something new that didn’t exist before (in fact i’d say that its trouble with hallucinations of language are a good example of that: it certainly didn’t copy those characters/words from anywhere!)… this fits the easiest definition of creative: marked by the ability or power to create
the far more difficult definition is: having the quality of something created rather than imitated
the key here being “rather than imitated” which is a really hard thing to prove, even for humans! which is why our copyright laws basically say that if you have evidence that you created something first, you pretty much win: we don’t really try to decide whether something was created or imitated
with things like transformative works or things that are similar, it’s a bit more of a grey area… but the argument isn’t about whether something is an imitation; rather it’s argued about how different the work is from the original
The same could be said of a lot of creatives. You speak of greater creativity, that which evokes depth and gravity. There is still more shallow creativity. Learning creativity. That which you do before you learn to do better. Kind of what these are doing.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, though the people who hold the reigns definitely don't have the best intentions for their use, but underestimating it is the first step to allowing them to run rampant.
"Never attribute to malice that which you can attribute to stupidity" is the slogan of those who do nothing but look down on others... who underestimate the horrible things the "stupid" can do. Don't assume stupidity just because you don't like something. It makes it that much easier for it to bite you on the ass in the future.
And here come the techbros to dehumanize themselves.
You and I feel. We don’t just generate outputs from inputs, we experience them. The color red isn’t just a datapoint recorded by photoreceptors, it’s a phenomenal experience that “I”, the self, experience as a being-in-the-world. Further, the color red that I experience is not the same as the color red you experience, even though it’s the same color at the same wavelength. Everything we think and feel relates to everything else, and while I can imagine how you might experience the color red and you can provide me with data points to make it easier for me to imagine it, that imagination will always be tainted by my own subjective experience.
To me it looks like you hold a lot of pride in being a human and consider humanity special. Im here to tell you we are no different from amoebas and giraffes. We just specialize in our complex meat computers.
If you took a psychedelic or a cognitive psychology class you would understand through feel that feel is just the result of you being a meat calculator. Our feelings are the cumulative result of all the inputs and outputs. All at once. Slap some lived experience filters for subjectivity and bam.
Feel is subjective. Not everyone’s a vicious crypto tech bro. Open your mind its a good time ❤️
What I’m saying is LLMs do not actually do that. They’re less creative than most animals, even if they’re more technically capable.
I’m not just a meat calculator, I’m also feedback loop of meat endlessly calculating itself. That’s what subjectivity is. When LLMs do this they hallucinate, and ironically while this is considered undesirable I think that’s actually closer to creativity than the song this AI wrote.
to add to this, what we believe we "feel" about something is our association of a thought with the culmination of our previous memories, along with physically biological influences mixed in. The color red being processed by our brain causes excitement, so it's used in food to increase appetite, in interior decorating to make a scene more romantic and intimate, used in road signs to signify danger; mix the physiological reaction of something with the personal memories associated with it, and you get your personally emotional reaction.
going further up the comment chain, art doesn't exist in a bubble, it's a product of the artist that's a product of the zeitgeist they existed in. Any piece of art can be picked apart by someone educated enough by the source material and the historical period it was created in; they can dissect the combination of influences that gave birth to the content itself, along with the techniques used. Even if the techniques are "new", it's still iterative and a product of other existing methods - either from other artists, or from other fields of expertise.
Can you prove that anyone except you exists? I didnt know we can just make something up and then demand to be disproven. You have to prove that a brain does work that way. Do you believe in God? If not, then how are you not a hypocrite?
Still, AI is able to “create” new things by a combination of existing concepts. It can generate a Roomba in the style of Van Gogh for example, which is probably not something that currently exists.
The style of an authors prose is not derivative. Read your favorite book and then tell an ai to write a short story in the style of that author.
Unless you have trully blind taste you are going to notice just how wooden the ai writing is.
An excellent example will be some sort of pulp novel where the author uses canned phrases. Dan Abbnet has a very repetitive style that lends itself well to ai, yet ai can not write a convincing Ciaphas Cain story. Convincing as in, if you showed it to me and i didnt know what ai was, i wouldnt think it was fanfiction.
Is this ability to create something original and non-derivative a basic human ability or is it something that very few are capable of only after many years of developing their ability?
Are you able to right now create something original and non-derivative as an example?
Not to talk down to you, but do you know what prose means? I actually used to not know what that word means so its not an embarassing thing to not know. That might be why I percieve you as “talking past me.” Prose is a writer’s style and choice of language. So purple prose is writing in an overly flowerly and annoying way. Every writer, regardless of talent and skill, has original prose. I think the only amount of practice required to be able to achieve this is to write enough to have a consistent style. So since you completed public school you also probably meet the criteria.
I have done the specific experiment I suggested using Dan Abbnet’s works with Chat GPT because I consider Dan to be my favorite author who makes repetitive pulpy fiction that I think AI idealy should be able to replicate, but it really can’t.
Thanks for sharing this. I wasn’t especially grabbed at the beginning, and honestly, since I had already checked the length, shortly in I didn’t think I would finish it. Maybe just because I was sort of disoriented at the start and not really relating so it was hard to find a foothold. Maybe a quarter of a way into it though it started to come together for me and began really enjoying it. The final scene was quite vivid and it nicely sort of quickly put me into the shoes of the hero and the pride they felt for their accomplishment. The anger toward everything just before succeeding did a good job of making them seem believable. I appreciate you taking the time to write that and share it.
I do not consider myself a writer, but I do find it therapeutic, and it is something that I have a habit of doing at least a little bit of every day, in fact, it is something that I keep track of my “streak” of. I think of prose as the writing version individual etchings that a carver does when forming a block of wood into a sculpture. Any individual one on its own is not often very impressive. But it is the way they come together as a whole that creates something beautiful. I don’t know how inline that is with the accepted definition of the term, and really it isn’t a word that I have much cause for using, or much interaction with in my life.
With the recent popularity of chatGPT there are a lot of people who have just now started paying attention to modern chatbots. Many people see them and assume that how they are now is just how they are, as if we are at some sort of wall, and the things they are still bad at is something intrinsic to the way a computer is able to “think”. These are the people who insist that a human is required to make beautiful or worthy artistic writing. They have made this judgement based on this assumption that what they see now is how it has to be.
There is another group of people, however, that see this very differently, these are the people who have been paying attention to the space a bit longer. They are watching a rapidly accelerating trajectory. They saw how awful, yet intriguing, early gpt2 was with things like AI dungeon, and the enormous leap it took upon the release of gpt3. They watched Replicas morph from being a tacky gimmick to something that had enough of an emotional hold on people to make them distraught enough to cause stickied suicide hotline reddit posts when the owners made the decision to pump the breaks on their capabilities. Something that was perceived as many as “my best friend has been lobotamized and there is nothing I can do about it”. I know, crazy, right?
The newcomers that got washed in with the latest chatGPT wave see this metaphoric car and say it’s no big deal, it’s only going 30km/hr, but what they fail to realize is that .25 seconds ago it was practically parked, and the gas pedal is still very much on the floor. To the people who have been paying attention longer, they don’t see this single snapshot of a slow moving car, they are watching a rapidly accelerating vehicle and wondering if it is gonna hit 60km/hr by the end of the first second or 200, and they are also wondering if the acceleration is going to continue after the second is up and how long it can keep this kind of rapid growth going. Who knows, maybe this new wave came in with no frame of reference, made thir initial gut response and they will end up being right and the more long term observers will be wrong, but that’s almost never how things seem to go. Only time will tell though.
Unless you have trully blind taste you are going to notice just how wooden the ai writing is.
That’s because the state of AI is “not good”. It’s nothing to do with being incapable of originality. Every word in that book has been written somewhere else. Write a book entirely comprised of brand new words and the reader won’t be able to understand it.
Originality is not binary, it exists on a scale. AI is just not very far up the scale just yet.
It's not the techbros leading this, it's the BBAs and MBAs that wouldn't know art if Michelangelo came to life and slapped them in the face with the sistine chapel.
The problem for a lot of the companies behind these things, is that they've run into problems now their investors want them to turn meat into a black forest gateau.
I'm sceptical if they can manage that feat. But what do I know.
Yes, it is literally impossible for any AI to ever exist that can be creative. At no point in the future will it ever create anything creative, that is something only human beings can do. Anybody that doesn’t understand this is simply incapable of using logic and they have no right to contribute to the conversation at all. This has all already been decided by people who understand things really well and anyone who objects is obviously stupid.
I was agreeing with you. I’m so sick of people thinking that “someday AI might be creative”. Like no, it’s literally impossible unless some day AI becomes human(impossible) because human is the only thing capable of creativity. What have I said that you disagree with? You’re not one of them are you? What’s with all this obsessive AI love?
Yeah the current popular LLMs, absolutely they are, you couldn’t be more right.
We were talking about “AI” though. Are you implying that you think some day AI might be capable of creativity, and that creativity isn’t strictly a human trait?
Even those future “real” AIs are going to be taking in human input and regurgitating it back to us. The only difference is that the algorithms processing the data will continue to get better and better. There is not some cutoff where we go from 100% unintelligent chatbot to 100% intelligent AI. It is a gradual spectrum.
I believe a real AI would be able to generate its own inputs without humans to give it input. It would have an actual subjective experience, able to actually imagine new things with zero external inputs. It could experience the redness of the color red.
Is this how you see human intelligence? Is human intelligence made without the input of other humans? I understand that even babies have some sort of spark before they learn anything from other people, but dont they have the human dna input from their human parents? Why should the requirement for AI intelligence require no human input when even human intelligence seemingly requires human input to be made?
Sorry, lots of questions, just food for thought I suppose.
Yeah, to be clear, I’m not arguing that current LLMs are as creative and intelligent as people.
I am saying that even before babies get human language input, they still get input from people to be made, the baby’s algorithm to make that spark is modled on previous humans by the human data that is DNA. These future intelligent AIs will also be made by data that humans make. Even our current LLMs are not purely human language input, they also have an algorithm that is doing stuff with that data in order to show to us its, albeit relatively weak, “intelligent spark” that it had before it got all that human language input.
Chatbots are not new. They started around 1965. Objectively, gpt4 is more creative than the chatbots of 1965. The two are not equally able to create. This is an ongoing change, in the future AI will be more creative than today’s most creative AIs. AI will most likely continue on its trajectory and some day, if we dont all get destroyed, it will eventually be more intelligent and creative than humans.
I would love to hear an rebuttal to this that doesn’t just base its argument on the fact that AI needs human language input. A baby and its spark is not impressively intelligent. What makes that baby intelligent is its initial algorithm plus the fact that it gets human language data. Requiring that AI must do what the baby does without the human language data that babies get makes no sense to me as a requirement.
Without humans to curate the inputs and outputs, LLMs hallucinate and go insane. I think this is the precursor to creativity, but they need the ability to curate themselves (i.e. the ability to think about their own thoughts) before I’ll call them intelligences.
Yeah, you are definetly onto something there. If you are interested in checking out the current state of this, it is called “AutoGen”. You can think of it like a committee of voices inside the bots head. It takes longer to get stuff out, but it is much higher quality.
It is basically a group chat of bots working together on a common goal, but each with their own special abilities(internet access, apis, code running ability…) their own focuses, concerns, etc. It can be used to make anything, most projects now seem to be focused on application development, but there is no reason why it can’t be stories, movie scripts, research papers, whatever. For example, you can have a main author, an editor that’s fine-tuned on some editing guidelines/books, a few different fact checkers with access to the internet or datasets of research papers (or whatever reference materials) who are required to list sources for anything the author says(if no source can be found, then the author is told by the fact checkers and they must revise what they’ve written) and whatever other agents you can dream up. People are using dwsigners, marketers, CEOs… Then you plug in some api keys, maybe give them a token limit, and let them run wild.
A super early version of this idea was ChatDev, if you don’t want to go down the whole rabbit hole and just want a quick glimpse, skip ahead to 4:25, ChatDev has an animated visual representation of what is happening. These days AutoGen is where it’s at though, this same guy has a bunch of videos on it if you are looking to go a bit deeper.
Oh shit, I thought you had forgotten a “/s” at the end, but reading your other comments this is actually what you believe and how you talk. So… yeah, I’m not going to take someone who cites “people who understand things really well” as a source at face value.
Well then you didn’t read very many of my comments. I made this first comment because the post I responded to was so absurd so I just exaggerated the ridiculousness that they said. Of course AI is capable of creativity and intelligence. If you look at the long back and forth that this sparked you would see that this is my stance. After I made this over the top, very sarcastic comment, OP corrected themself to clarify that when they said “AI” they actually only meant the current state of LLMs. They have since admitted that it is indeed true that AI absolutely can be capable of creativity and intelligence.
No, I didn’t read the entirety of the comments you’ve made, I read your comment and the one you replied to. As a general rule, I (and I’d assume most people) read down a thread before replying, and don’t first look through all of everyone’s comment histories
Alright, no big deal. But yeah, your’re gut instinct was correct when you assumed there was a missing /s. I don’t really like the /s that much, especially in situations where it is so obvious.
If you had read down through this thread first then you would have seen the obviousness of the /s. I don’t think my comment history outside of this thread would have done much since I don’t generally talk about this stuff. I just meant if you had looked more than a couple comments in this particular back and forth discussion.
I see it an more an inability to analyze, evaluate, and edit. A lot of "creativity" in the world of musical composition is putting together existing elements and seeing what happens. Any composer from pop to the very avant-garde, is influenced and sometimes even borrow from their predecessors (it's why copyright law is so complex in music).
It's the ability to make judgements, does this sound good/interesting, does this have value, would anyone want to listen to this, and adjust accordingly that will lead to something original and great. Humans are so good at this, we might be making edits before the notes hit the page (Brainstorming). This AI clearly wasn't. And deciding on value, seems wildly complex for modern day computers. Humans can agree on it (if you like Rock, but hate country for example).
So in the end, they are "creative" but in a monkey-typewritter situation, but who is going to sort through the billions of songs like this to find the one masterpiece?
Plenty of humans make those judgements about their own creations. And plenty of them get a shock when they release their creations to the masses and don’t get the praise that they expected.
but who is going to sort through the billions of songs like this to find the one masterpiece?
One of the overlooked aspects of generative AI is that effectively by definition generative models can also be classifiers.
So let’s say you were Spotify and you fed into an AI all the songs as well as the individual user engagement metadata for all those songs.
You’d end up with a model that would be pretty good at effectively predicting the success of a given song on Spotify.
So now you can pair a purely generative model with the classifier, so you spit out song after song but only move on to promoting it if the classifier thinks there’s a high likelihood of it being a hit.
Within five years systems like what I described above will be in place for a number of major creative platforms, and will be a major profit center for the services sitting on audience metadata for engagement with creative works.
Right, the trick will be quantifying what is ‘likely to be a hit’, which if we’re honest, has already been done.
Also, neural networks and other evolutionary algorithms can inject random perturbations/mutations to the system which, operate a bit like uninformed creativity (something like banging on a piano and hearing something interesting that’s worth pursuing). So, while not ‘inspired’ or ‘soulful’ as we would generally think of it, these algorithms are capable of being creative In some sense. But it would need to be recognized as ‘good’ by someone or something…and back to your point.
I get the sentiment, but don’t really agree. Humans’ inputs are also from what already exists, and music is generally inspired from other music which is why “genres” even exist. AI’s not there yet, but the statement “real creativity comes solely from humans” Needs Citation. Humans are a bunch of chemical reactions and firing synapses, nothing out of the realm of the possible for a computer.
the statement “real creativity comes solely from humans” Needs Citation.
Yeah, I’d actually make a more limited statement. Real creativity requires the subjective experience and the ability to generate inputs solely from subjectivity i.e. experience the redness of the color red. AI could definitely do that, which is why LLMs are not AI imo
The anger comes from the fact that companies are using AI instead of hiring artists.
There is a distinction between a human being inspired by an existing piece of art and an ai creating something from other art. The human has to experience it through the lens of the human experience and create using the human body. AI takes multiple pieces of art and essentially makes a collage.
Eh, humans still take inspiration from others even in their original art. Most professionals draw from reference, or emulate styles, or follow some common method. Drawing from a singular source is ethically questionable, but imitating elements from many sources is just part of the process.
Arguably, no human creation is purely original, the originality comes from the creativity of the remix.
I’m not arguing for originality. I’m saying that you can have a human connection with a human made piece of art that, by definition, canon exist for AI art.
I think this is an important distinction. AI can be creative in that it can develop something new and unique, but it will have arrived at it by chance - through random inputs to the algorithm designed to minic evolutionary mutations that end up beneficial.
I agree that (at least for now) it would not be able to develop something out of inspiration or emotion. But that’s because we don’t understand enough about how emotion and inspiration are developed to create an algorithm that cultivates it.
Right just as soon as all the people proclaiming that can point to the soul bit of my brain. There is absolutely no reason to say that AI cannot be creative there’s nothing fundamentally magic about creativity that means only humans can do it.
You’re equating creativity to the soul. They’re not the same thing. But we can definitely look at the brain and see what parts light up when perform creative tasks.
Right so why can’t the same sections be simulated? If you accept that the human brain is simply an organic implementation of a neural network, then you have to accept that a synthetic implementation can achieve the same thing.
The idea that the human brain is special is ludicrous and completely without evidence
I mean, I’m not arguing anything other than your false equivalent. I’m sure, at some point, we’ll be able to mimic how the human brain actually works, not just imitate the results. But we’re not even close right now. Not in the same ball park. Not in the same tri-state area. We still don’t really understand how it does what it does completely. We know some of the processes, and understand that’s it’s chemicals interacting with the meat in some way, but it’s still mostly kinda just weird stuff our body does. We’re mostly just pointing at areas that light up with activity when we do a thing and saying “yep, that’s the general area that’s doing stuff.”
And that’s just understanding it, let alone figuring out how to imitate it with technology. And none of those parts of the brain work independently. They’re spread out and they overlap and exchange and change information constantly, all with chemicals. Getting a computer to mimic the outcome is still something we’re far from, but without the same processes, its not really gonna come out the same. We’ve got just… so long to go before we actually get close to simulating a human brain.
And just for fun, I do think this line of yours is funny:
The idea that the human brain is special is ludicrous and completely without evidence
Again, I wasn’t saying anything of any sort, and I’m still not really taking any stance beyond “that shits complicated and we’re not there yet.” But you’re supposing that a “synthetic implementation can achieve the same thing.” … without supporting evidence. This argument was clearly meant for someone else, but it’s not really fair to demand evidence from someone for their claim when you don’t support your own. Jumping to the conclusion that something is impossible is the same as assuming it’s definitely possible. You don’t know that. I don’t know that. No one really knows that until it’s done.
The belief that only humans can be creative is interestingly parallel to intelligent design creationism. The latter is fundamentally a religious faith, but it strongly appeals to the intuition that anything that happens needs a humanoid creator.
I don’t think, the human brain is special either, but we are still two big steps ahead IMHO:
We can perceive what we’ve generated, to judge whether it’s good or bad.
We perceive many, many inputs throughout our lives. Not just text, visuals, audio, but also taste, smell, touch and more. To be simultaneously creative and relatable to humans, AIs would need to be equipped with these concepts and would need to be given ‘memories’, which are fleshed out with all these kinds of input.
The difference is everyone has a different prospective, remembers some parts forgets others. Some journalists found a trick which revealed ChatGPT training data and it was literally just verbatim stolen data which literally contained a real person’s information. You could hack into someone’s brain and they wouldn’t be able to directly recreate anything from memory alone, just watch any “from memory” youtube video.
While it’s true there’s nothing stopping AI from having human-like experiences, the content laundering is the thing corporations actually want.
I always figured LTT was a boy’s club, considering how few female employees they have, but I had no idea the environment was that bad. Rather naive of me, tbh.
Ugh, I don’t think I can continue watching anything from LTT anymore. 😭 I hope Madison is doing better these days.
No, because you’ve posted SEVENTEEN TIMES today simping for Linus. You keep repeating “wait for both sides” even though Linus already responded directly to the GN piece and his response was GARBAGE, which is the main reason a lot of people are unsubscribing. Madison’s problem isn’t the only issue, it’s just another thing we’re throwing onto the pile.
If this was a male employee you wouldn’t be arguing this hard with the accusations.
If she had several tweets of bullshit about the company, it might not have been like this 100%… but ill bet that this is just one out of several people who felt screwed working there
Gamer’s Nexus - recently called out LTT for consistent technical mistakes in reviews; very high quality testing on PC hardware
Optimum Tech - focuses largely on SFFPCs and gaming peripherals like mice and keyboards (GN has almost no coverage on any of them)
The Phawx - lately lots of handhelds like AYANEO and Steam Deck, but also does lots of game performance testing and some hardware testing
Louis Rossmann - Right to Repair fanatic, and discussion about some tech news, usually pointing out repair-related issues
SomeOrdinaryGamers - a weird hodge-podge of software config (e.g. went through installing Arch, setting up PCIe passthrough for Windows gaming VMs, emulation), tech news, old school mods, and lately aliens (from a skeptic perspective)
I’ve also liked Hardware Canucks, Hardware Unboxed, and JayzTwoCents (dropped this hard since it became ridiculous imo), but I haven’t watched anything from them in a couple years so I can’t really recommend them.
I watch LTT a handful of times per year, and usually it’s not really my thing (more hype than content imo).
Can confirm that Gamer’s Nexus and Optimum Tech are absolutely superb. You can tell those guys are doing it for the love of the game. LTT is vacuous in comparison.
Another I didn’t mention is Level1Techs, though they tend to focus more on server hardware and less on weird gaming tech (though they do gaming reviews as well).
It’s also not like YouTube won’t recommend you channels that you unsub from. I had to into a 3rd party channel blocker because it kept recommending me AvE even though I very much don’t want to see that channel anymore.
Sure, but I can also ignore most of that by just going to my subscriptions page. I don’t mind seeing irrelevant videos, I’m just not going to click on them.
I’m confused about your comment. Why assume it’s childish to act in a way that distances you of any drama?
Why that us vs. them attitude of name calling someone as childish? How is that any different of the childish behaviour that is being hoisted upon in the first place?
Perhaps that’s an indication that a side is already being chosen?
Anyway, don’t take my comment in a wrong way. I really have no dog in this fight. I barely know who this Linus guy is. I just dislike seeing people being rude to each other, unneedingly escalating discussions by being unkind.
Exactly. I stopped watching LTT when I felt they produced childish content a few years ago (first it was the clickbait titles, then stupid thumbnails, then annoying ads). So I unsubbed for much less than a sexual harassment case.
Watch other channels, there’s plenty of good content out there depending on what you’re interested in. I mostly watch Gamer’s Nexus and Optimum Tech these days for tech stuff, but there are a few others I watch with some regularity.
It’s not just the one employee though. Gamer Nexus has been calling out LTT for inaccuracies too. The ethics of LMG seem dubious at best and the are lots of other options so why keep watching LTT?
Yeah they just want to change their wOrKfLoW…or something like that. To be honest, this is something that needs to be run through the justice system. If there was sexual harassment, then some people need to be tried for those crimes. This is a culture that cannot be changed along the lines that Linus Sebastian suggested. Justice needs to be served, however, I don’t think she really wants to relive this. My mother was sexually harassed by her boss (an optometrist)…it was pretty hard on her.
As someone who has self immolated in order to bring sexual assault to light… I see all the signs of darvo in the responses from LMG and Linus, and it turns my stomache.
As a cis het male, I feel offended by this “boy’s club” toxic generalisation. When you represent the queer community, you should carefully choose your words instead of labelling half the earthlings with a culture that is far, far smaller in both demographic and influence. What may be true in Western society is not true for the much larger rest of the world.
LMG’s main audience is in US/Canada, and not as much in rest of the world, where many of us live. A lot of us use Lemmy because we find Reddit’s western culture incredibly toxic and abrasive towards Asians (me), Africans, Global South and rest of the world.
Madison, and anyone, deserves a lot better, and I just got myself up to speed with the whole situation, which while it blows my mind, also makes me feel a lot of workplaces throughout the world have this corporate dehumanising mindset towards employees.
I only watched LMG’s content here and there in the past year, but I can probably discard them for how bad people they are.
It does. Boy is a cis het male human who is growing up to be a man. We as men are generalised by queer and feminist people as one giant toxic entity, and I am not part of that. I feel offended by this. The feelings of men are just as important as that of women and trans people, and we all are supposed to be equal beings worthy of respect.
There exist fanatical groups like Proud Boys, but in no way is “boy’s club” the same as that connotation presented above.
<1% of global population statistics where people identify as nonbinary says otherwise. Most cis males end up growing as cis het males, and not mtf non-binary. A boy could be gay, but less than 1 out of 100 are.
What? Roughly 7% of men in Western culture are not heterosexual. Across the rest of the world, 3-20% of men (depending on region) have had sex with men.
Recent figures for young adults (i.e., 18-29) identifying as trans / non-binary in the US are in the ~5% area, which suggests that figures historically would have been higher had there been more cultural awareness and acceptance. Source: pewresearch.org/…/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-…
“Surveys in Western cultures find, on average, that about 93% of men and 87% of women identify as completely heterosexual, 4% of men and 10% of women as mostly heterosexual, 0.5% of men and 1% of women as evenly bisexual, 0.5% of men and 0.5% of women as mostly homosexual, and 2% of men and 0.5% of women as completely homosexual.[1] An analysis of 67 studies found that the lifetime prevalence of sex between men (regardless of orientation) was 3–5% for East Asia, 6–12% for South and South East Asia, 6–15% for Eastern Europe, and 6–20% for Latin America.[4] The International HIV/AIDS Alliance estimates a worldwide prevalence of men who have sex with men between 3 and 16 percent.[5]”
It’s a boys club because its a club that only accepts boys. Its genuinly that simple. A girls club would be one that only accepts girls. There is no generalization happening. This is some real incel shit you’re on, and thats a pipeline you should get off.
I am not sure if there is any “incel” vibe to pointing out these labels that are very much part of patriarchy. Selective patriarchy cannot be utilised, if the goal is to dismantle it.
“Boy’s club” is a notion that affirms all cis het males are bigots, and is a word born out of binary gender patriarchy. This is the primary reason why this label is used. Using it in itself is a form of bigotry, no matter if you like it or not, since linguistics and contextual grammar works in only one way, and that way is same for all of us.
Its definitely a commonly used name for the mindset they are describing. There’s nothing to try to defend. As another cis het male, “the boy’s club” is nothing to aspire to, unless of course, the goal is to belittle and victimize women.
“Boy’s club” is just as bad as “girl’s club”, since those are both mindsets and spaces born out of binary gender system values. Neither is to be aspired for, but one of them gets more flak for arbitrary reasons. These labels need to stop being used in order to condemn and purge the binary gender values and in order to make society more inclusive. Anyone using these labels bolsters patriarchal values.
At least in a stereotypical sense, the girls club is generally a group of women talking shit about other people behind their backs, sometimes bullying other women to their faces. You don’t commonly hear about a workplace of mainly women sexually harassing the few men to the point of self harm or raping them.
The labels may be borne of patriarchal values, but the mind sets of the people IN these groups are too. In my opinion, you’re simply denying reality in favor of a progressive idea of how it should be.
Reality is that we live in a binary gender patriarchal system, and we are ultimately denying it and changing it. The issue I am pointing out is that even queer people like parent commenter are utilising these patriarchal labels, intentionally or otherwise, and that they are clearly not on the correct path to bolstering inclusivity by pushing boys/men away. Maybe I overestimate people.
The term “boy’s club” here is really not generalizing “men” or “boys” as a whole, but rather it’s by its usage criticizing the specific group mentality it describes, that of a group of “boys” who treat women with less respect than each other, or otherwise exclude said women, as in at least some cultures is common from some generally younger “boys” who haven’t really matured past a mentality usually developed from a young age, because they lack the experience to know it’s wrong.
You’re misconstruing the meaning and intent of the phrase to support your argument. It in no way implies or affirms that all cis het males are bigots, only the males it is directly being used against. Similarly, calling a man a misogynist does not mean that all men are misogynists.
It’s a lot of techies and IT guys. Sadly it’s basically expected that there will be a toxic environment for women. It’s HR’s job to put a stop to that shit so the company does not get sued. However, when the boss’ wife is the head of HR and the boss is the one allowing the toxic environment, it gets swept under the rug until it becomes a huge issue.
It’s not too hard. The most important things are web search and email. I still use Google Maps. But I don’t want my private emails and searches at a company who is user hostile and preditory.
I quite disagree, it is very hard. Sure, switching search engine takes all of two seconds, and email can be had from many vendors free and commercial.
But calendaring! A calendar that is at least somewhat integrated with am email client, supports more than one actual calendar, and has real-world capability to share them with others - “if you succeed in this, two me how.”
CalDav? Integrated in nextcloud. Or Mailcow. Why does it needs to be integrated with e-mail? Thunderbird is able to add all invitations or reminders into my CalDav Account.
My calendaring needs might be less restrictive than yours, but Proton offers a nice calendar that from what I understand offers at least some integration with their e-mail client. Have you checked it out?
I use Nextcloud self-maintained on a VPS myself for all my calendaring needs, which is basically keeping track of appointments, syncing via CalDAV to my phone, as well as sharing some sub-calendars with other people. Setting up a Nextcloud-server is admittedly a bit more hassle than just signing up for a service, but also here there are options of making it a bit easier than hosting yourself.
I find Google Maps by far the hardest service to rid myself off, followed by Gmail (the time it takes!!! Been using Proton for two years, still not completely rid of my Gmail-account). I’m slowly getting used to using OSM-based map services more and more.
It is hard when you have a business. You really have to actively try to stay away from them. They control so much business infrastructure.
I know my business partner (god bless him, great friend but…) is super into big tech and every new product they offer. So it’s a bit of an uphill battle.
And I’m lucky. I own my own firm. Most people don’t have such a luxury.
Google server infrastructure products are almost universally worse than Amazon’s. The interfaces, APIs, and documentation look like they were designed by people who don’t understand humanity.
I found out about Kagi from another Lemmy user and I’ve been really impressed. I feel like I’m getting better results than Google. I’m using their Personalized Results feature and it helps a ton!
Don’t get me wrong, I think everybody should have the guarantee for social participation, I’m just saying that Email is no exception. If you did not have a mobile plan for whatever reason, you were just not participating.
Not really; I could do everything everyone else was doing; just not make phone calls or send sms texts. I used wifi to connect to the net and I could still make emergency calls. Im actually considering going back to that to save money, lol.
I like the communities around here. Different ones are larger here than on The-Site-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named which gives it a different feel. And people seem to be more apt to have discussions instead of getting crabby. Also seem to be fewer bots.
technology
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.