I hate to ruin this for you, but if you post nonsense, it will get downvoted by humans and excluded from any data set (or included as examples of what to avoid). If it's not nonsensical enough to be downvoted, it still won't do well vote wise, and will not realistically poison any data. And if it's upvoted... it just might be good data. That is why Reddit's data is valuable to Google. It basically has a built in system for identifying 'bad' data.
ClamDrinker
joined 1 year ago
What makes you think so? I read hardcore as 'small and tight-knit', exactly the kind of forum that could survive easily on user donations and due to the more personal relationship there's more loss in leaving it. I know some forums that fit that description that are still around now.
Let bro touch some feathers man 😭
For real, it's what I hate about all of this because infighting pretty much always leads to people being shafted. Even if there are plenty of things to come to agreements about. But this kind of one sided soapboxing is just doing far more harm than good in convincing people.
Yeah... who doesn't love moral absolutism... The honest answer to all of these questions is, it depends.
Are these tools ethical or environmentally sustainable:
AI doesn't just exist of LLMs, which are indeed notoriously expensive to train and run. Using an image generator for example can be done on something as simple as a gaming grade GPU. And other AI technologies are already so light weight your phone can handle them. Do we assign the same negativity to gaming even though it's just people using electricity for entertainment? Producing a game also costs a lot more than it does for an end user to play. It's all about the balance between the two. And yes, AI technologies should rightfully be criticized for being wasteful, such as implementing it in places that it has no business in, or foregoing becoming more efficient.
The ethicality of AI is also something that is a deeply nuanced topic that has no clear consensus. Nor does every company that works with AI use it in the same way. Court cases are pending, and none have been conclusive thus far. Implying it is one sided is just incredibly dishonest.
but do they enable great things that people want?
This is probably the silliest one of them all, because AI technologies are ground breaking in medical research. They are seemingly pivotal in healing the sick people of tomorrow. And creative AIs allow people who are creative to be more creative. But they are ignored. They are shoved to the side because they don't fit in the "AI bad" narrative. Even though we should be acknowledging them, and seeing them as the allies they are against big companies trying to hoard AI technology for themselves. It is these companies that produce problematic AI, not the small artists, creatives, researchers, or anyone using AI ethically.
but are they being made by well meaning people for good reasons?
Who, exactly? You must realize there are far more parties than Google, Meta and Microsoft that create AI right? Companies and groups you've most likely never heard of before, creating open source AI for everyone to benefit from, not just those hoarding it for themselves. It's just so incredibly narrow minded to assign maliciousness to such a large group of people on the basis of what technology they work with.
Maybe you're not being negative enough
Maybe you are not being open minded enough, or have been blinded by hate. Because this shit isn't healthy. It's echo chamber level behaviour. I have a lot more respect for people that don't like AI, but base it on rational reasons. There's plenty of genuinely bad things about AI that have to be addressed, but instead you have to find yourself in a divide between people cuddling very close with spreading borderline misinformation to get what they want, and genuine people that simply want their voice and concerns about AI to be heard.
I wish some people that liked Queen and these styles of music would realize they are not immune from the subjectiveness of music tastes. It's one of the bigger 'bubbles', if not the biggest, but certainly not the only one or I'd argue, the majority.
I like my choice of music to the point where most pieces invoke more joy and emotion to me than Bohemian Rhapsody, and I find it somewhat strange that even so long after it was released it still remains on top. That's completely different from what I like, where a new song can pretty much take the top spot at any time if it's good enough. If it's the same song every time, that's something I wouldn't consider a healthy level of innovation for a genre, but rather a sign that it has reached it's peak and has became seemingly permanently stale. At that point it feels to me that deep nostalgia keeps it in place, rather than it actually being the best current music has to offer.
There's nothing wrong with that though, nostalgia is a valid reason to like a song. But often some people that like that kind of music become militantly angry if you point that out. And then cite popularity contests that only people that like that kind of music participate in, to somehow say that everyone likes their music. And that in turn makes those contests seem kind of disingenuous since they claim they are finding the best music of all time. It's self selecting, because anyone that can't boost their specific music to the top because their genre still has healthy levels of competition and can't produce one piece that everyone agrees on, simply won't bother.
Just my two cents to an unpopular opinion. Again I don't mind people liking Queen's music, but I've had people literally be offended because I didn't want to listen to a group of men scream "Mama mia" in an attempt to burst my ear drums because they want the volume to be at 300% when that part starts, only to then also sing along for another volume boost. Anyone else doing that with their music would be told to mind their own business and keep the volume reasonable. It's the double standard and the denial of contrary opinions that I don't like. You can't expect everyone to like your music.
Every piece of legislature ever needs to deal with the emotions of it's subjects. An unemphatic, but cold hard rational law, will be nothing less of tyrannical most of the time. Laws are for humans to follow, and humans have emotions that need to be understood for a law to be successful and supported to last into the future. A law that isn't supported by it's subjects eventually leads to revolution (big and small).
How logic and rational a person can be is highly dependent on their emotional intelligence. You might be able to suppress your emotions when there is no stress at all, but if you cave during a stressful situation and start lashing out, that does impact your overall intelligence. Intelligence is just the collection of behaviors and training that make you effective at doing what you want to do, and being rational and logical is definitely good, but not the end of it all.
You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence Because what you are describing is exactly what I was saying. High emotional intelligence is not relying blindly on your emotions like republicans do, that's what low emotional intelligence looks like.
People forget emotional intelligence is also just as much if not more important than logical intelligence when attempting to change the world for the better. And both Trump and Musk rank among the lowest of low there.
It doesn't measure intelligence, it correlates with (logical) intelligence. There is also emotional intelligence, which Musk is evidently on the exact opposite side of genius. You just can't put an exact number on intelligence, only approximate it. Having a lot of money ensures good baseline education, and many avenues to inflate score. His actions and results are going to speak louder than any score he pumps up, and we know where that ends:
Exactly, thinking that is what I was getting pulled me over the edge, I sometimes remember a music video I want to listen to on my phone during my commute and I don't want to spend 30 minutes either getting on my PC to download it with a tool, or using a third party downloader which can at times be shady. So upgrading that to a single click in the app seemed like a great deal. Crushingly disappointed when I found out how it actually was. Turns out the real answer was NewPipe, which I don't even have to pay for.
I'm sorry to hear that. For me I've seen far more (relatively) big forums either turn into a discord, a subreddit, or just die out altogether due to being unsustainable for it's cost. Just seems more logical to me that the less personal places have more trouble sustaining themselves, but we can disagree on that.