mountainriver

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

the game memorizes these moments, what you say, how they react, and creates story arcs based on it

LLMs famously can't be consistent, so your fantasy game would have story arcs that doesn't fit together, brings back characters that are already dead as if nothing happened, and everyone would have a son named Dorian.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

Good point.

Heinlein is a bit tricky because on one hand he clearly has a Point of View, but on the other he tends to reuse material, which includes prodding at earlier systems until they get sufficiently dystopian to demand a strong Individualist Man to step up. Don't know if he set that up on purpose or if it was a consequence and set up things, or just the need to churn out new books. Sometimes I got the feeling that he tried ideas on for size.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago

Oh no, the AIs are replacing us!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I didn't know that uwu news influencer was a thing. Kind of a clash between style and topic there, but hey whatever gets the word out.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I think he means "mass sterilisation of a population" Vs "mass murder of the same population", which is genocide either way, and then he would opt for the faster method.

Or something. Feels extra creepy discussing which genocide is better with the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I know you mean sovereign citizens, but reading "sovcit" my first thought goes to Eastmeg One (and my second thought goes to Eastmeg Two, obviously).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

Sounds like getting a professional to file it (at least the first time) will in the end cost less.

But congratulations on the move!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

So now I won't have to search for places to buy my rocks when Google tells me to eat rocks? Now it can just tell me that Bedrock Gravel and Quarry has all the stones for a balanced diet.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Overheard my kids, one of them had some group project in school and the other asked who they had ended up in group with. After hearing the names, the reaction was "they are good, none of them will use AI".

So as always kids that actually does something in group projects doesn't want to end up in a group with kids that won't contribute. Difference is just that instead of just slacking off and doing nothing they will today "contribute" AI slop. And as always the main lesson from group projects in school is avoid ending up in a group with slackers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)
  1. You get better at being smart by INT-grinding. A machine could be INT-grinding the whole time. It's like in Oblivion if you wanted to grind Speed you could go into a city, stand in a doorway and place something heavy on the jump key on the keyboard. Then while you take care of the dishes or something, your character grinds. But for INT!

If it gets smart enough it will start finding hacks, like those INT- increasing potions in Morrowind that increased your Alchemy so you could make even better INT-potions.

It might even get smart enough to escape the Elder Scrolls; and start playing another game!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Reads "Does AI make researchers more productive? What? Why would it?"

Thinks "When does statistically likely text without relation to truth make researchers more productive? Well, when they are faking research"

Gets to article. Article is about faking research about AI making researchers more productive.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

I signed it but had the same assumption that it wouldn't pass with 400k signatures over the first 362 days. But it did! The graph the last three days must look vertical.

Anyone who's eligible and wants to sign it can still do so today, Saturday 17th. To show the popular support.

 

Capgemini has polled executives, customer service workers and consumers (but mostly executives) and found out that customer service sucks, and working in customer service sucks even more. Customers apparently want prompt solutions to problems. Customer service personnel feels that they are put in a position to upsell customers. For some reason this makes both sides unhappy.

Solution? Chatbots!

There is some nice rhetorical footwork going on in the report, so it was presumably written by a human. By conflating chatbots and live chat (you know, with someone actually alive) and never once asking whether the chatbots can actually solve the problems with customer service, they come to the conclusion that chatbots must be the answer. After all, lots of the surveyed executives think they will be the answer. And when have executives ever been wrong?

 

This isn't a sneer, more of a meta take. Written because I sit in a waiting room and is a bit bored, so I'm writing from memory, no exact quotes will be had.

A recent thread mentioning "No Logo" in combination with a comment in one of the mega-threads that pleaded for us to be more positive about AI got me thinking. I think that in our late stage capitalism it's the consumer's duty to be relentlessly negative, until proven otherwise.

"No Logo" contained a history of capitalism and how we got from a goods based industrial capitalism to a brand based one. I would argue that "No Logo" was written in the end of a longer period that contained both of these, the period of profit driven capital allocation. Profit, as everyone remembers from basic marxism, is the surplus value the capitalist acquire through paying less for labour and resources then the goods (or services, but Marx focused on goods) are sold for. Profits build capital, allowing the capitalist to accrue more and more capital and power.

Even in Marx times, it was not only profits that built capital, but new capital could be had from banks, jump-starting the business in exchange for future profits. Thus capital was still allocated in the 1990s when "No Logo" was written, even if the profits had shifted from the good to the brand. In this model, one could argue about ethical consumption, but that is no longer the world we live in, so I am just gonna leave it there.

In the 1990s there was also a tech bubble were capital allocation was following a different logic. The bubble logic is that capital formation is founded on hype, were capital is allocated to increase hype in hopes of selling to a bigger fool before it all collapses. The bigger the bubble grows, the more institutions are dragged in (by the greed and FOMO of their managers), like banks and pension funds. The bigger the bubble, the more it distorts the surrounding businesses and legislation. Notice how now that the crypto bubble has burst, the obvious crimes of the perpetrators can be prosecuted.

In short, the bigger the bubble, the bigger the damage.

If in a profit driven capital allocation, the consumer can deny corporations profit, in the hype driven capital allocation, the consumer can deny corporations hype. To point and laugh is damage minimisation.

view more: next ›