I’ve never got this either. I’ve been using Linux exclusively for over 4 years, multiple devices, tested dozens of distros, almost all Systemd-based and I havent ever experienced any problems that the anti-systemd folks talk about.
Or at least, they were so rare and minimal that I didn’t notice.
Coming from an IT background dealing with 99% Windows machines and Microsoft products, maybe my bar was on the floor, but Linux has been soooo much more stable and dependable than Windows.
Been using Linux since 2004 and systemd has made my life significantly easier. People bickering about systemd are usually ultra nerds without arguments real people would consider important.
I remember in my coding class when the prof claimed the language we were learning didn’t have GOTO, but it also didn’t need it because anything that could be accomplished with GOTO could be accomplished with loops and conditionals.
Now looking back I can’t believe what a tech debt nightmare goto is, and I’m glad I weaned off it.
Startup scripts seem more powerful because they’re code you know will be executed sequentially. For a developer that feels nice.
But a declarative system like systemd is so much more predictable and stable, specifically because it does NOT allow for sequential execution of code.
Once I made that switch I was a fan. It’s so much more predictable and standardized.
Exactly my sentiment. Why would you want something with more moving parts than systemd which is also slower? :D
There are some good alternatives to SysV init.d scripts nowadays which only came to fruition after systemd existed and people noticed it’s possible to write something like this.
I used OpenRC and s6 and both of them worked better and were easier to configure than SysV init.
Was a little bit of a hassle initially to convert various custom init scripts into systemd unit files, but it was worth it IMO. Now the init scripts feel kinda jank in comparison lol.
On a barebones or embedded system I can see a lightweight init having a very big appeal though
Systemd is awesome. I used to use init.d and was annoyed when I had to learn systemd instead, but once I did I’m so glad it exists. Declarative is the way to go.
fUcK sYsTeMd ItS fAsCiSt BuLlShIt If ThEAy PuT iT iN lInUx AnD tAkE oUr FrEeDoM i WiLl SwItCh To BsD uMmM IdK wHaT iT dOeS rEaLlY sOmEtHiNg WiTh SeRvIcEs I gUeSs FuCk SyStEmD!!11!!
I used Linux (and some Unix) before systemd was a thing and init scripts are jank. So much boilerplate and that was before things like proper isolation existed and other more modern features.
I don’t understand why anyone would want that back.
A replacement of systemd with something else would be fine, but please no more init scripts and pointless run levels.
I almost forgot it existed. It was a slight improvement, but with a whole bunch of new problems (most notable race conditions which were never fixed) and it was made obsolete by systemd.
It was a good evolutionary step only used by Ubuntu iirc. It was better at that time than the previous init system, but not more than that and it never found wide adaption.
Streaming videos on my phone using speaker for audio while at the restaurant eating lunch. I figured for sure, everyone would want to get in on that awesome stand-up comedy action or zany talk show that I enjoy with my meal. It turns out that (gasp!) some people even think it’s rude…LOL.
There’s a segment on a podcast I listen to that is all about conversations without context, and half of phone conversations are a common feature.
The hosts will mention some they’ve encountered over the week since their last recording, and people will call in to share the ones they hear. Always a good chuckle.
I’d rather a hundred of those than some kid with mommy’s iPhone watching brainrotting Youtube Kids videos all day with the sound on. At least then I won’t feel bad for the kid.
JFC. Sometimes people visit us with kids and it’s just arrive > open youtube > commence rot > spice it up 9yo twerking.
My partner is pregnant with our first child. I get the convenience of free child distraction, I also get that I might find myself doing exactly this in several years, but honestly I really hope I can find ways to at least minimise this. It just seems so Orwellian or… wall-e-ian.
I swear my kids are probably going to hate me because I’ll be the most boring dad around that forces kids to play outside instead of doing all the fun stuff.
I’m sure they only do this while “mummy is visiting” and it doesn’t happen at home.
I think it’s fine in moderation and when it’s some manually curated service like the children’s section of streaming platforms (but even then it’s not perfect considering Cocomelon exists), or in the case of YouTube you’re watching it WITH your kid to avoid running into anything weird (though I think any platform meant for content aimed towards children should be 100% manually curated). The problem is when it’s excessive or it winds up sending your five year old down a bizarre rabbithole of pregnant Spiderman twerking videos because you didn’t bother to moderate what they were watching.
Was at dinner with my partner’s family. His sister acquiesced to his niece when she demanded her phone 5 seconds after finishing her meal, and said nothing while the girl sat there watching loud videos. Nothing about ‘hey we’re in a restaurant’ or anything about being polite and making conversation. She’s 13. Has no concept of boredom or how to act around adults. Because there’s zero requirement to.
You got some good answers but remember too, you’re only seeing a fragment of those kids at your place. The screen might for example be a special rare reward for them to keep them quite so your friends can visit you… doesn’t mean they’re on scree s all the time.
My kids aren’t particularly screen born most of the time, but when we’re out I often relax the rules to keep things smooth. The fact that it’s a rare treat makes it even more effective
There’s a generic thing with cilantro that makes some people think it tastes like soap. I don’t have it, but my wife does. I hardly notice cilantro, but even a little ruins a dish for her.
What we taste is a specific chemical that you can’t taste. There are a handful of these chemicals that can be tasteless or not based on your genetics. Drinking alcohols all have a chemical like that. If you ever see anyone hold their nose while taking a shot, it means they’re a taster of that chemical, and trying nor to taste it.
Every little bit I eat them to see if I like them (or can force myself to) but I just haven’t been able to yet. I really wish I could just get over my dislike but I can’t seem to enjoy the taste.
I saw someone commenting how they specifically don’t like “raw tomatoes”. I was wondering why you’d be eating raw tomatoes to begin with but they just meant like regular tomatoes, ones you haven’t cooked since for them the cooked ones were the norm. And it had so many people agreeing with them about how “raw tomatoes” are disgusting.
I’d call “raw” tomatoes, as in regular eatable ones as just regular tomatoes. Raw to me sounds like unripe. While prepared, I guess that is self-explanatory. But I guess that’s more about cultural or language differences.
What do you not like about “raw” (I guess it is now warranted since there’s ambiguity, so fair enough) tomatoes? I think they’re the tits! First time I hear the term “heirloom tomatoes” btw.
Raw means uncooked, not unripe. They taste sharper and have their skins on, and the seeds are with their gel and juice, between the firm fleshy parts. When tomatoes are cooked, often the first step is to drop them in boiling water for a minute, take them out, and slide the skins off. Because the skin gets tough when cooked. The other thing that happens in cooking is that the flesh softens and the seeds migrate so it’s all more or less the same texture. The flavor gets sweeter too.
Personally I like raw tomatoes and cooked equally, but they are different.
Just sounds so weird, people calling regular tomartoes “raw” lmao. Is that a thing somewhere in the world, maybe the US? They like their stuff factory done lol
Raw cherry tomatoes or grape tomatoes would go along with raw carrots and raw celery and raw cauliflower and raw bell peppers and other raw vegetables on a crudité platter. Guess what “cru” and “crudités” means in French?
The point being that these are all vegetables that can also be served cooked. (Unlike lettuce which is ruined by cooking. I tried it once, blech.) But when dipping, you want that firmness and fresh taste.
It’s not a US thing, or anything special, you just seem to have an exaggerated idea of what the word raw means. Maybe you’re confused because it can also mean naked (“in Equus, he appeared on stage in the raw”) or chafed/chapped (“his nose was red and raw from the snowstorm”) or unedited/unfiltered (“the raw data suggests Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 election”). But in this case it just means uncooked/unheated. It could be sliced and spiced and still be raw.
Btw, we don’t default to cooked or canned tomatoes, we would specify those as well, for instance in a pasta or chili recipe.
Depends on the context. For instance I have tomatoes growing in a pot on my balcony… I might say, “I put some tomatoes in the salad” or “…in my sandwich” and we’d both know I meant raw. Or I might say “this curry has tomatoes in it” and they’re obviously cooked. Even if I said they were fresh tomatoes from my garden. Unless I was offering chopped tomatoes as a condiment for the hot curry, then they’d be raw.
The people in the comment thread were just trying to make it clear they have an objection to raw tomatoes but not cooked ones, that’s why they specified.
Of course people can have whatever they want, but it’s not a traditional pizza combination for the same reason why no other fruits are found in a pizza except for tomatoes!
Is it much different from other savory food that comes with a sweet side dish? Just as cranberry fits to venison, the taste of pineapple fits the ham those pizze typically are covered with.
I played like 40hours of Cyberpunk 2077 before going on social media. I Thought it was going to get “mid” reviews, but I guess I got really lucky to not hit any serious bugs. Lesson being: If you wanna enjoy a game, don’t look at any marketing materials, and don’t seek out social media about it until you’ve had time to form your own opinions.
Yeah I think the same thing is happening with starfield as well. People expected skyrim x elite dangerous x the good parts of no man’s sky and I think that just isn’t realistic. That said I find starfield pretty meh in it’s current state, I am waiting for the QOL mods to stabilize before I play much as I just ran into way too many issues.
My biggest (not only) complaint so far is that entire planets have maybe 8 or 9 species of plants and animals. Hopefully biodiversity mods will pop up. It seems like a decent platform to build future content into.
It would be one thing if people were just overhyping things, but a lot of the outrage was over how much they just blatantly lied while marketing the game. They promised a lot of specific things and then released something that was aesthetically impressive but ultimately outdone in just about every other category by sometimes decades old games, and lacked all of the groundbreaking features they marketed.
Personally, even coming back to it much later and trying to enjoy it at face value with all of its updates, it still felt like a boring and shallow GTA clone with a neon glaze. That’s not to mention the fact that it’s still frustratingly buggy.
I read reviews before buying on day 2, basically. Sure, I expected some bugs, as the reviewers warned. I barely got any, just some visual glitches during cutscenes. Still, I would give the game a solid 8/10.
Came out of my playthrough to everyone raging about everything about the game. Couldn’t even give an honest opinion about the game without being downvoted to oblivion because people who never even played the game refused to believe the game was playable at all.
Same. I played it on stadia and it was pretty stable. When I went to that other site to see what people were saying I was absolutely shocked at the amount of bugs and hate it was getting.
Yeah I hear that’s bad, I hate all driving in video games so it wasn’t anything out of the ordinary for me, I think I drove a car like twice in 150hrs.
To be it was truly bad, but not in a rage-y way, only in a “Wow, this is it?! All this hype, all this wait, and this tepid fart is all we’re getting at the end?”-way.
I finished it - which granted isn’t difficult given how brief the main quest is - then went through some specific side quests. I will give it credit, some of the side quests have really cool characters and are overall really well done. And the graphics can be pretty as hell in some if not most areas. But ~everything else, the main quest, the writing, the story, the city in itself, the software quality, the combat system, the upgrade system, it’s all there, it’s largely functional, but just barely so.
So yeah, just massively disappointing given how much work must have been behind it. I don’t even want to know how often management yanked the team around and made them re-do massive parts of it, the bugginess and tonal disjointedness of the finished game hints at it plenty.
Special shoutout to the driving, which highlights how the game was clearly not meant to have this until relatively late in development.
I borrowed it from a library for a PS4. It was genuinely unplayable if you actually wanted to play it, but for laughing at the bugs and whatnot it was great.
Would’ve been pissed if I had paid anything for it.
I’m not a gamer but I’ve noticed reviews of anything are usually trash. And if you’re thinking about buying a product and looking at reviews, you’ve gotta be careful to avoid reviews where they get a cut on the “buy now” links. In fact, usually if it has a link to buy it I just go back and forget that review.
I have driven one and despised it. It ran out of battery way too fast, so a 4 hour car ride turned into an 8 hour one because I needed to charge so often
We did a trip with my friends’ Tesla earlier this year. Normally would have taken us 8 hours, now it took 10 (or maybe it was even 12h instead of 10).
The car also wasn’t properly charged the night before for some reason, so we left with half a “tank”. That added an extra stop. I also think there were a lot of traffic problems which contributed in the extra time.
I also don’t mind to stop every 2 hours or so to charge. Perfect time for a bathroom/coffee/food break. But I’m not used to driving long distances. I know some people like to drive for 4 or 5 hours straight.
I’ll typically drive 12 hours without a stop. I hate having to stop, better take your piss before we get going because you’ll be doing it out the window.
Really? My wife did a 5 hour drive (Toronto to Ottawa) and the car’s only recharge took less time than her lunch. This is with a bolt EUV which is a cheaper car with slower charging and range than a lot of the competition.
Were you using a very old/cheap EV, or were you forced to use a slow charger?
I used quick chargers wherever possible, but also had problems getting those to work and was told I needed to hold up the charger by customer support when I finally got through to them. It was a BMW i3 which is indeed a model that is no longer being produced.
I’m not saying EVs are a bad thing, I just don’t think the tech is quite there yet compared to “normal” cars
It’s better in some way, it’s worse with others. My 400km range EV is good enough for most of the road trips I consider, but it doesn’t quite stand up to some more hardcore road trippers, and it’s winter range is markedly worse (your experience is quite the outlier in my experience though).
As you drive more electric you start to get a feel for the good and bad charging providers, (just like we all have preferences for gas stations I may add) some have pretty near instant customer service, others are basically build and forget. Where I live there are government owned truck stops that all have the same fast chargers that in my experience are well maintained, so the anxiety around finding a working charger isn’t a big deal during road trips. There was a brief period where I couldn’t use at home charging and my nearest fast charger broke down, that was a huge PITA.
But road trips are kinda a rare occurrence for most people, I at least might do one trip a year that’s greater than my range. it’s really nice to never have to go to a gas station, I genuinely don’t really think about how much fuel I have ever, and that fuel costs me pennies where I am (about $5 for 400km of range at my home electricity rates). It’s nice that it has essentially no maintenance. It’s nice that I can start preheating my car in winter while it’s in the garage.
If an environmental miracle happened today and gas cars were something we all could use forever, I personally would still drive electric.
That said I also just moved to a more walk-able city and god dammit cars have ruined society, I find myself in a car way less than I used to, but still far more than I would like.
Oh yeah I basically never drive a car, it was a rental. It’s just that my personal experience want all that great because I rented it specifically for a road trip
Not directly, power generation does for now, but your point stands.
The bigger issue with electric cars is the simple fact that busses and trains will still blow them out of the water in environmental footprint. Using a 4000 lb vehicle to move one person will simply never be efficient, regardless of the drivetrain.
It isn’t, it’s to buy time. rebuilding cities to be less car centric takes decades. And even once fully transitioned there will be niche uses for electric vehicles.
fucking despise them, its disgusting that investing in renewables or green only became attractive to governments when it meant sending more money to fucking car manufacturers
My wife and I lived in Germany for 2 years. We went to Munich for a weekend and had an excellent historical walking tour across the city, provided for free by our hostel.
During that tour, we learned that pretty much every stereotype Americans have for Germans (lederhosen, yodeling, beer and brats, etc.) are actually Bavarian culture, not German. And Germans are actually quite offended at the confusion we have between their culture and Bavarian culture.
We also learned that Bavaria used to be quite wealthy and powerful, and intended to split off into their own independent nation at one time. But then Hitler set up shop there and made it his headquarters for the Third Reich. The city was absolutely decimated during WWII, and when the war was over, they not only had to rebuild from scratch, but also had to contribute to rebuilding the rest of Germany, as well as paying for war damages for Europe and all Allied nations, etc. Their wealth was pretty much depleted and their hope of being an independent nation was gone.
Bavaria was a very agricultural heavy state, that made a few things right in the last few hounded years. Bavaria has like every over German state a long and rich independent history. Only Bavarian nationalists dream of an independent Bavaria. Hitler joined the NSDAP in Munich and it was one of it’s early strongholds. Most German cities were destroyed in WWII. Germany did not “pay” reparations, because they still had a lot of open dept from WWI. They paid with land, factories, infrastructure and forced labor. What the guide meant was probably the so-called “soli”. It is a special tax that was levied from former Westgerman states to support former GDR states, which did not develop as much under the socialist rule. That tax was and is controversial and was changed to nowadays only applie to richer people.
Bavaria was always a big state in german, that tries to play a special role. Especially their main party the CSU participated in German politics, while enforcing predominantly Bavarian Interests. These methodes were obviously anti democratic but only borderline illegal and forced the government to restructure the parliament.
So yea. I grew up in Bavaria and I get why most Germans are quite annoyed with bavarians.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it the German Texas, if the kids can still go to school without fearing for their life. Sounds more like the German Ohio.
I said Quebec because of the victim complex and all the chest beating about independence that goes nowhere (Quebec at least has a better reason than Texas or Bavaria.)
During that tour, we learned that pretty much every stereotype Americans have for Germans (lederhosen, yodeling, beer and brats, etc.) are actually Bavarian culture, not German.
So for lederhosen, it’s mostly true, although they’re traditional in Austria too. Yodeling is Alpine culture and not specifically Bavarian, meaning it exists in Bavaria, in Austria and Switzerland. For beer, only weissbier is truly Bavarian; e.g. pilsener originated from Czechia, lager originated from Austria [til!]. And although there are Bavarian bratwurst variants, bratwursts are not specifically Bavarian. However, veal sausage (weisswurst) is exclusively Bavarian.
And Germans are actually quite offended at the confusion we have between their culture and Bavarian culture.
That is true. I think to some degree this confusion comes from the fact that so many Americans were stationed in Bavaria after WWII, so they only got to experience this part of German culture.
[…] when the war was over, they not only had to rebuild from scratch, but also had to contribute to rebuilding the rest of Germany, as well as paying for war damages for Europe and all Allied nations, etc. Their wealth was pretty much depleted and their hope of being an independent nation was gone.
I am not particularly versed in Bavarian history, but note that some Bavarians have developed a bit of a fetish portraying themselves as victims of injust decisions from on high. I would take that info with a grain of salt.
Antisemite Aiwanger, extensive preventative jail, attempts on dismantling state equalisation payments, lack of secularisation, decades-long opposition to queer legalisation, abortion, social security, asylum in general et cetera
Don’t forget being the german state for beer and alcoholism, and being staunchly against legalizing cannabis because “OMG drugs”, apparently. The CSU needs to be dismantled. Period.
It’s not like the northern states don’t hold this hypocritical position themselves though. CSU just had powerful positions in drug politics lately, I guess.
Large Language Models (such as GPT) and AI image generators.
I follow certain AI related post tags on Tumblr and sometimes I see people expressing pure hatred towards these tools, as they only see the AIs as content thieves.
As an artist I think it’s a more complicated issue than a lot of people are making it out to be, and all the fearmongering some popular artists are promoting really doesn’t help.
You sound like you’ve already closed your mind to the discussion, but in case you’re actually still willing to healthily engage in the discussion here is a really good video about why calling people who utilize AI in their work “hacks and grifters” is a very narrow minded (and often factually incorrect) way of looking at AI utilization.
I think it’s a more complicated issue than a lot of people are making it out to be
Agree.
Also. People are pissed that what they have taken years to master others can now get close to replicate with little effort and time.
I’ve just realized that although they call the AIs “content thieves”, what they really feel is that as AIs are able to replicate their skills quickly, it makes them feel their own merit diminished.
If an artist creates artwork inspired on some other artist eveyone’s cool; if an AI does the same, then it’s stolen work even if the generated image is a unique new one.
I don’t mind the tool itself if you use it as such. I do mind when people use its output as the final product. See: the lawyer who used chatgpt for a legal brief
The person you first replied to asked you to see the legal brief as an example of why they mind using the output as the finished product. You then asked for an explanation. To which I asked you, hey, have you actually looked at that example? You have not.
What exactly do you want here, other than be argumentative for combative reasons?
Letting a language model do the work of thinking is like building a house and using a circular saw to put nails in. It will do it but you should not trust the results.
It is not Google. It can, will, and has made up facts as long as it fits the format expected
Not at the very least proof reading and fact checking the output is beyond lazy and a terrible use of a tool. Using it to create the end product instead of as a tool to use in creation of an end product are two very different things.
The lawyer fuck up is what happens when someone doesn’t know or understand the limitations of a LLM.
If you want a GPT model tailored and specialized for a specific task, you have to train it with custom data, fine tune it and tweak the model’s parameters. You cannot do that from the ChatGPT web/app, you need a custom implementation coded in Python or some other language.
I’m glad you understand my point. Chatgpt is not Google. It’s a language model that will give you something that looks like the thing you asked for it to provide. It can and will pull facts out of its recycle bin if it fits the cadence of what it expects the answer to look like.
ChatGPT is not Google, but sometimes it can work as a glorified search engine or even compete with asking in forums.
I’ve lost count of how many times ChatGPT has produced Bash or Python code for what I needed. Yes, sometimes the code is wrong and/or requires tweaking and sometimes I resorted to look into the documentation, but no one will answer faster and anytime of the day like ChatGPT does, at least not for free.
It’s a tool to aid in creating a product, not a tool that magics out a finished product. That’s my point. Too many people use it as the latter instead of the former.
There are some uis that allow for fine tuning (assuming you have an extremely high end rig designed for ml). For example ChatGPT alternative and DALLE alternative.
Thanks. I have a quite powerful rig, but at the moment I work with OpenAI’s API using GPT 3.5 Turbo using a custom (but shitty) Python script with a simple Gradio web interface. However, I mostly stopped improving or updating it months ago. As long as I don’t use LlamaIndex, the cost is quite low.
I also don’t think that the ChatGPT model is able to do something that requires referencing case law or medical texts or whatever else at all in its current form. The way it works by generating probabilities for certain words is all wrong for doing something where the value of the output isn’t subjective - you need the model to be able to distinguish between facts and opinion, you need it to be able to cite sources for what it says, you need it to be able to produce coherent cause and effect chains and formulate an argument, all things which no currently existing LLM is capable of no matter how much you fine tune it because of how it works.
AI is a method of content theft, it takes other people’s work and pieces it together in a way that resembles other works, without any actual coherency.
I don’t like that it churns out slop that displaces actual content.
I also don’t like the way it’s sped up enshitification of google and news sites. I didn’t think it could get worse than pages of listicles written by disinterested journalists paid fuckall to churn out 10 a day, but now you have chatGPT churning out 100 completely useless articles a day.
LLMs just automates and does faster certain things that a person could do on their own if they invested way more effort and time. If a human being takes people’s work and pieces it together in a way that resembles other works without using any LLM/AI or automation tool, is the final result content theft too?
I agree with the content enshitification, but I disagree about the coherency.
Usually, implementations like the ChatGPT web/app will generate different outputs for the same prompt/input. You can also ask it to tweak a previous output, make it shorter, more concise, exclude parts, etc. And if you’re making API calls through a script you can tweak parameters like the Temperature, Top P, Presence Penalty or Frequence Penaly, which affect things like the coherence, randomness or repetitiveness of the output.
There’s also fine tunning using embeddings, which can help training a model to fit one’s specific needs and expectations, but I haven’t got to try it yet.
If a human being takes people’s work and pieces it together in a way that resembles other works without using any LLM/AI or automation tool, is the final result content theft too?
Yes, obviously. Artists and writers can learn from others and can be inspired by other’s works, but they can’t use parts of those works. That is content theft. Imitating a style is fine, but you have to create something new. LLMs cannot create, only steal.
If, for example, I ask an LLM to produce a short story with a completely unique and random prompt that doesn’t resemble any known existing story in its training data (or in the entire world, if you like), is the generated output of the LLM also stolen?
I think what you’re proposing isn’t something they can do. Are you saying “What if I asked it to create a short story who’s pieces don’t resemble any pieces of known stories?” or are you saying “What if I asked it to create a short story who’s whole doesn’t resemble any known stories?”
The first one can’t happen. The second? Yes, it’s stealing.
Where is it getting this story? LLMs don’t have creativity. They don’t understand story structure. It pulls sentences and paragraphs from work in it’s training data. If the generated output contains work that others have made, that’s called plagiarism. If it doesn’t, then your hypothetical isn’t realistic. LLMs can’t create original works. That’s the whole point. It pulls pieces of the training data and rearranges them. It would be like if I was writing a college paper and instead of writing anything myself I just pulled 100 different sources and copied a sentence or two from each source and structured them as my paper. That’s 100% plagiarism.
The process of generating a story involves recombining and rephrasing the LLM’s training data in unique ways, it’s not a copypaste job. They generate content by predicting and generating text based on patterns, an this implicates a degree of transformation and synthesis.
Where do you draw the line between plagiarism vs inspiration, whether it’s a person or an LLM? How long and similar to something existing does a fragment of text have to be to cross the plagiarism line?
Coherency requires relating symbolic meanings. AI just uses statistical analysis.
Consider if you were locked in the national library of Thailand. You don’t speak Siamese, and any pictures or bilingual dictionaries were removed.
Given a thousand years, you could look at the patterns and produce text similar to what someone who writes Siamese would write, but there’s still no coherency because you cannot connect the meaning behind any of the words.
That doesn’t necessarily mean your outputs are useless though, someone who does read Siamese can have you generate outputs until you print out something they can infer a coherent thought from, but you’re fundamentally unable to be trained to do that yourself.
If a human being takes people’s work and pieces it together in a way that resembles other works without using any LLM/AI or automation tool, is the final result content theft too?
We’re getting into ethics territory. IP is a social construct and we live under capitalism, our model for determining what is and isn’t theft should be selected by what supports artists and consumers against capitalists.
Given a thousand years, you could look at the patterns and produce text similar to what someone who writes Siamese would write, but there’s still no coherency because you cannot connect the meaning behind any of the words.
That doesn’t necessarily mean your outputs are useless though, someone who does read Siamese can have you generate outputs until you print out something they can infer a coherent thought from, but you’re fundamentally unable to be trained to do that yourself.
You’re comparing an LLM to something similar to the infinite monkey theorem. In your analogy, you should consider that someone who knows perfect Siamese is giving me feedback to optimize and improve my outputs, even I don’t really know the meaning of anything.
While an LLM may not have a conscience to evaluate if its output is coherent, it can identify patterns and relationships from its training and can generate text that is still appears coherent to human readers.
There was this uber hype around it, then we started using it … and it just makes so many errors, it’s literally just generating more work. Scrapped it after less than a week. It’s modern snakeoil.
Bard is the same, I asked it questions about two of my favourite bands whom I know a lot about. It omitted facts and invented things that were not true!
We used it for code generation. But we ended up spending more time fixen and debugging the generated code than it would have taken us to just write it. Also it introduces the most annoying type of bugs. Like once it misspelled a property name, but only at one point in the code, got it right everywhere else.
That’s why, in the case of a GPT model you would feed it custom training data using something like LlamaIndex. I don’t know if there’s an API available for Bard, tho.
You’re wrong assuming that the free models that we have at our disposal are the only possible and best implementations of these LLMs.
What did you use it for? I helps me a lot with coding, scripting, translations, terminologies… Sometimes it makes mistakes, but other times it produces working code that accomplishes what I asked for.
In any case, ChatGPT is just a demo that uses the GPT-3.5 Turbo model. Many people is being misled assuming that the ChatGPT research preview is all that the model has to offer. You can also try the improved model GPT-4, but it’s not free.
If you really want to get its full potential you need a custom implementation in Python that works against the API and do things like fine tune the model, embeddings, feed it custom data or give it access to tools with LangChain.
Of course that’s not something easy to do, but don’t think that the ChatGPT web/app is GPT models’ full potential.
What! I have the opposite experience.
Im a tabletop roleplaying gamemaster and it has helped me immensely with translations, formatting of text, compiling and keeping track of my players character backgrounds and even coming up with plots and scenes that are suited for each player.
I have a feeling this one’s mostly operator error.
Once we found the issues, it was actually quite easy to tell the AI to fix them. But at this point you’re debugging generated code to imrpove your input for the code generator … and it just was faster to write the code by hand.
And yes, there was a vast overestimation of what it can do, especially by some managers that used to be coders and thought this would compensate for their lack of recent practical expirence. It didn’t … I had to fix it.
Interesting, I’m working as a network engineer and my current job is overhauling an old TV broadcast facility. There are a lot of random solutions like using off brand switches and lack of documentation, etc.
AI has been absolutely critical, it doesn’t do the work for me, but like any good tool it amplifies my ability to do work by cutting out the middle man of sifting through pages of spice works and stack overflow articles trying to figure out what command a ten year old Avaya needs to accomplish whatever task I require of it.
Is it always correct? No. That’s why the engineer behind the screen exists. It does usually get me a workable answer more quickly than just having to look it up myself, though. Between my knowledge of terminal CLI commands and the AI, I’ve been able to get a lot done.
Hell I had it walk me through the process of setting up automated backups, it even suggested the tftp server I used to do it. Shits been working great.
Even our service desk has been able to use it to help with more advanced problems by telling it the issue and describing what has already been done.
Idk why no one else sees the value, I’m over here like Captain Picard solving problems by talking to the LCARS system.
I do see the potential value and I’m happy it worked out for you. But don’t end up like the lawyers that used chatGPT like a search engine and it just made up fictiional cases they cited in an actual court.
I wouldn’t say “hate”, to me it’s more… so what? They’re really bad at what they do, only impressive at first glance. Not bad for some brainstorming, but then you end up with a facsimile of what the actual result would be, and now have to use that as a guideline to create the result.
IMO they’re not bad, but they require a lot of tweaking and trial and error.
I’ve learnt some Python thanks to ChatGPT’s help. When I say “some” I mean that I was able to create a custom implementation that uses a web interface and custom tools. The more lI learnt, the less I needed ChatGPT, but I always require some more coding help.
However, these LLMs are not sentient super smart AIs.
LLM is way overhyped. So if your boss bought into that hype you’re gonna have a certain amount of animosity towards it. I’m a developer and it can be helpful at times, but managers seem to think it can write software on its own.
It’s basically an iterative improvement over a search engine, but unlike a search engine it cuts off the people creating the content it’s scraping from any kind of revenue stream.
And yeah there’s some real problems with it stealing content. Which isn’t being addressed at all. And bringing up these issues tend to get treated like Luddites by those that have bought into the hype.
I like them as non-profit tools for personal use, but the hatred is justified IMO because we’re already seeing people with writing jobs lose that job and get replaced by an LLM and an “editor” who is paid less than the writer was.
Also, for stuff like art competitions and magazines, there is a need to develop a rigorous method of verification of what is and isn’t AI-generated. I’ve been published in a magazine before, but if I were to submit a story now I’d be competing against a massive wave of generated stories.
I like them as non-profit tools for personal use, but the hatred is justified IMO because we’re already seeing people with writing jobs lose that job and get replaced by an LLM and an “editor” who is paid less than the writer was.
That’s capitalism in all of its glory. People never mattered to the ones who want to make money; they just want want to as much profit as possible with the minimal investment. Someone at work created a tool that turns a work day of painstating tasks into a 5 minute wait? Fire the people, keep the tool. You may call LLMs or AIs enablers, but it’s like hating baseball bats because some use them to crack open skulls instead of hitting baseballs.
Regarding the verification of AI-generated content, I just can say I agree, but it’s going to be hard to detect.
Honestly if every brand would stop making their own shitty launchers and filling their phones with bloatware this would mostly not happen anymore I think. Pure Android on Google Pixel phones is hands down better than every other version.
The Samsung’s OneUI is imho much better than pure android in terms of features and UX. It’s sad, because it shouldn’t be like that and it makes it hard for me to leave samsung for something else (I wanna pixel with GrapheneOS)
Because of privacy (not only Samsung’s, but Android itself sends massive amount of data to Google) GrapheneOS removes all the tracking and hardens the android to be more secure.
Rickrolling wasn’t ‘ha ha you listened to an overplayed song.’ It was the punchline to successful trolling. You’d wind people up with a story and provide alleged video evidence. Suddenly they’d know they were duped. The tension, the emotional investment, was yanked out from under them. It’s the comedy version of a jump scare.
Basically, do you know who Shittymorph is?
But this being the internet, a lot of people Did Not Get It, and thought the entire gag was the mild annoyance of unexpected exposure to some above-average pop hit. The meme died because of their clueless misuse and overuse.
The original Rick roll was not a happy YouTube video link. It was a JavaScript bomb that you couldn’t get out of. Some people knew how to terminate their browser process, most people had to reboot.
“I’ve had an idea… Lightning has just struck my brain…” “Oh, that must of hurt!”
It’s in that part of my brain that was written before I understood media being ‘good’ and ‘bad’, so my memory of it just is, I’ve never stopped to think about its quality.
Here? Bicycles. Super weird how weird people are about bikes and bike lanes here. Spreading the joy of a non-commodified fun-as-fuck method of transportation often provokes some truly reactionary energy here.
Biking is based. The benefits far outweight the cons compared to the other private transport we have today. I thought the hate was almost exclusive to cars from what I’ve seen which is understandable. At least in comparison to bikes.
At the same time you have people driving 30 minutes to the gym to use the stationary bike… I bet if they had less human-hostile designed cities, people would cycle more.
Who doesn’t like bicycles? I mean, cyclists are often very reckless, dangerous people on the road, and bike lanes are sometimes more of a safety hazard.
Bikers get a lot of hate because a lot of them act like pedestrians. (i.e. riding on sidewalks, crosswalks, not stopping at stop signs, not signalling turns or shoulder-checking) But then if you do all of that dumb law-abiding stuff like some kind of responsible citizen, people in cars honk at you, give you their right of way, or worse!
cyclists would not need to do those things if there was proper infrastructure and if car drivers weren’t out to kill them.
making bikes come to a complete stop is less safe because of the acceleration curve of a bike, if the way is clear it’s safer the cyclist and anyone else around for the cyclist to maintain speed
I mean, cyclists are often very reckless, dangerous people on the road
you should try interacting with cars as a pedestrian or cyclist. There are people driving on the roads now that I wouldn’t trust to safely ride in a pram let alone use of heavy machinery at high speed in a public area based on a test they did years ago. If car use was held to the same standard as safely using heavy machinery in an industrial environment a lot of people who drive now wouldn’t be let near a car. It’s like people think they have a god given right to operate heavy machinery despite having no ability (or inclination) to do so safely and doing it around children
also bikes don’t actually have turn signals and when you use your arm to signal it means you have less control of the bike while you do it
That’s why you have to practice signalling so that you can maintain control over the bike while signalling. It’s tricky, though, especially for less experienced cyclists. Have a lovely day and thanks for the insight!
As a cycling instructor, I’ve been honked at, verbally harassed, and flipped off more times than I can count. The reason I know the anti-bicycle talking points is because my job is to discourage people from becoming like that.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear in my comment! Have a lovely day and thank you! Your response made me laugh.
I ride on the sidewalk when I can because I do not want to be run over by some frothingfash in a truck with a 12" lift who’s infuriated by having to see a bicycle
I can understand that. I know that the laws (and road conditions) differ from place to place. Where I’m from, sidewalk riding is restricted to younger people, and so as a cycling instructor, I cannot advise my students to ride on the sidewalk, as it would be dangerous to pedestrians.
Thanks for your perspective, though! I hope you have a lovely day and most importantly, stay safe out there!
Super weird how weird people are about bikes and bike lanes here.
redditors are the worst about it. If you post in your town’s subreddit about bike lanes, all the landlords crawl out of the woodwork to talk shit about bicycles and go on paranoid rants about how drivers are oppressed by bike lanes.
I love riding my bike, but one thing I and everyone else heavily disagree on is riding in the street. You can tell me it’s safer (somehow) than the sidewalk until you’re blue in the face, I’m not doing it and I certainly don’t feel safer doing it, and I’m definitely going to be pissed at anyone doing it in a road I’m trying to drive down.
Edit: I almost forgot the carried over thing from Reddit where anything ambiguous is automatically the worst possible extreme, so I want to clarify that “being pissed” is just complaining to myself in my car, I’m not going to commit vehicular manslaughter because someone’s in the road on their bike.
Riding on the sidewalk endangers pedestrians (especially children and people with disabilities). Crossing an intersection that has cars coming from the right is also unsafer because you enter drivers’ the field of view much later (than if you’re on the street) and at a higher velocity (than a pedestrian). If you are riding a car please accept that in the most places in the industrialized part of the world, bicyclists have exactly the same right to use the street (according to local regulations of course).
A fine? What dystopian hellhole do you live in? Where I live in Indiana, almost no one rides in the street, always on the sidewalk, the only people ever riding in the street are those dorks in full underarmor outfits that revolve their entire life around being a bike owner. No one gets fined for riding in the sidewalk here, and I’m honestly horrified that that’s a thing anywhere.
Yeah but if you see monogamy as bad and immoral and try to explain why … somehow I expected at least some understanding. I thought other people were afraid to say what they really think.
Well, granted my sample size is extremely small, but I’ve only ever known 2 polyamorous groups of people well enough to visit their home. And in both cases, there was always 1 person who wasn’t as happy as the other two and was tolerating the scenario due to pressure from the person they considered their ‘significant other’.
The dynamic was: A & B would be considered spouses to each other, A wants to bring in additional person C and create a trio under the banner of “polyamory” and B consents (because they are willing to accommodate anything A wants to make A happy). So person C enters the relationship and they form a polyamorous-trio, but instead of it being a true trio, it’s more like A & B still have their relationship (now burdened) and A & C have a relationship, but B & C don’t engage much. This is the exact scenario I have witnessed in the only 2 households I’ve ever known doing it.
That’s given me the impression that arrangements like that usually serve the needs of one or two people but often leave at least one party secretly unhappy. Maybe if more people actually witnessed polyamory working as it’s been proclaimed, there would be higher opinions of arrangements like that. But I sure haven’t seen it - my current conclusion is that it’s just not within the bounds of human nature for this kind of relationship to work.
I think they can work, the problem tends to be people going into it not realizing that it’s more demanding than monogamy, one person feeling pressured into it especially when the relationship started as monogamous, and/or it being done as an attempt to “fix” a relationship that clearly isn’t working out, the latter of which happened with someone I know.
I’ve known quite a few people/groups that are poly and I dated someone who was poly for a while too. I did it because I didn’t feel like I had to deal with 100% of my partner because that would have crushed me.
My info is purely anecdotal but two super common threads that kept on appearing is there were people who were poly, but were never actually poly and just said it because their partner wanted to be so they said they were too and that the people who were super committed to poly all were trying to fill a gap in their lives and had a lot of insecurities in general.
Most hated the idea of ever being alone, not just in ‘a relationship’ but actually just being by themselves.
I think there’s a bit of thing where the less toxic the people, the more discreet they tend to be. I certainly wouldn’t let anyone who had only visited my house a handful of times know I’m poly. That’s only something people I would call friends would know. I also have pretty strong boundaries around not having secondary partners who aren’t specifically looking to be a secondary partner (usually because they already have a nesting partner themselves).
It’s also one of those things where most of the people I interact with IRL are all cool chill and reasonable people and then I go to nearly any online space and everyone is freaking insane with really toxic dynamics.
I think this point about being discreet is huge. My husband and have been open/poly for a decade (ie from the start). We don’t keep it a secret by any means, but most people I know have no idea — it just doesn’t come up in conversation very often.
We had a very bizarre situation recently where one of my closest friends saw my husband holding hands with his girlfriend at the beach. She texted me frantically, saying she just wants to support me and is here if I need her and she hoped she was doing the right thing by telling me. It was pretty trippy to tell this friend who is close enough to know super specific details about very private parts of my life “oh cool thanks but it’s chill.”
Non-monogamy isn’t for everyone, but it’s for a lot more people than you might think.
Yeah, this is my dynamic as well. My partner and I have been together for a decade and poly from the beginning. It’s not at all a secret, but people are so used to monogamy as a norm that they often just think our other partners are super close friends that hang out at our house a lot.
I wouldn’t say that I’m discreet, but I don’t make a point of telling people about it or anything. It eventually comes up in conversation naturally as I’m getting to know people. If I talk to you about my personal life, it’s gonna come up.
A “V” is a perfectly legitimate arrangement. In fact, those who demands the two other sides of the V to have any kind of relationship, even mere friendship, are considered toxic. And living together is forcing the issue.
Would you consider it a perfectly legitimate arrangement if one end of the “V” resents it and is unhappy? Because that’s the only way I’ve ever seen a polyamorous arrangement working in practice (and as I said earlier, I’ve only seen two, and both were like that).
I’m on one end of a V and super happy with the arrangement (the “primary” end, so the one most likely to harbor resentment). The other end of the V is too. And so is the middle lol.
Actually now that I think about it it’s actually a W. The other side of the V is in another V with her primary.
A resentful V is unhealthy and not going to end well, but there are plenty of happy functional Vs around.
Although I am not interested in doing it myself, I consider myself a student of psychology and sociology and am very curious. I hope I have the privilege of meeting a success-case such as yourself in person, who’s not shy about discussing it candidly, because I have a lot of curiosity about it and how it works.
I’m glad it’s working for you. If you don’t mind me asking, how long have you been participating in this relationship, do all 3 live together or separately, and have you always been an end or have you also been the middle of the V?
I hope I have the privilege of meeting a success-case such as yourself in person, who’s not shy about discussing it candidly, because I have a lot of curiosity about it and how it works.
Not the person you’re asking, but given your categorical prior assertions, I cannot help imagining a mocking tone in your question.
Not sure how you are misingerpreting what I’ve said, but you are way off here. My previous experiences (don’t know how you got ‘assertions’) are based on an already disclosed small sample size.
I have no judgments and no expectations but I am genuinely curious to learn more about the psycologies and dynamics involved, because it’s completely foreign to me. Are you confusing me with another poster?
My husband and I have been together for 10 years. He currently has a girlfriend he’s been seeing about 6 months. She lives with her husband (who also has a secondary partner) and two children. I have dated a bit but am not currently interested in anything outside our marriage. We also had a relationship a while ago where a close friend of mine had a purely sexual relationship with my husband for a little while, and for the next three years, we went through periods of being a triangle, a V, all just friends, she lived with us for a bit. She moved across the country and now is in a monogamous relationship, and we are all good friends. The most drama that has ever happened is that a guy I was into slept with a girl my husband had slept with. That kinda sucked. Thankfully I had my husband to cheer me up.
Because that’s the only way I’ve ever seen a polyamorous arrangement working in practice
And we know that the only things that exist are the one you have personally seen, so neutrinos, ultraviolet light, Greenland and the dark side of the moon don’t exist. Right?
It’s more like: I’ve only ever seen two unicorns, and both were white. Someone is trying to convince me that pink unicorns exist and I am saying I would like to see a pink unicorn.
Seems like you are intentionally trying to start a conflict where none exists.
Would you consider it a perfectly legitimate arrangement if one end of the “V” resents it and is unhappy?
That’s just called cheating, not polyarmory.
Mind you, I’ve been in this setup you describe for a long time. My previous partner had female partners on top of me after ~7 years of only having me, and while I was friends with some of the women - good friends with one, even - I wasn’t ever “close” to most of them. Worked perfectly fine for me.
And this wasn’t a short thing either, we were together for ~10 years after that point, and the longest “third” partner was for 6 years.
My wife has has a boyfriend for more than five years. I’m not attracted to him like she is, but nobody is unhappy in or about our arrangement. We met each other really young, and it stuck. But neither of us wants to have only one great romance in our lives. It really is what works for us.
It’s something I’m actively pursuing. I really had to transition first before it was a realistic option. Now it feels almost inevitable. I rock a manic pixie moon child look and vibe working at a busy dispensary. I just have to let RNGesus do her terrible work and stay vigilant.
I’ve been in poly relationships most of my adult life, around 15 years now. I’m certainly familiar with the type of relationship you describe, but the long term, stable poly relationships are the ones that have been poly from the get go.
I don’t tend to date people who are “opening things up” in a previously monogamous relationship, because being someone’s learning experience is a bummer.
So person C enters the relationship and they form a polyamorous-trio, but instead of it being a true trio, it’s more like A & B still have their relationship (now burdened) and A & C have a relationship, but B & C don’t engage much. This is the exact scenario I have witnessed in the only 2 households I’ve ever known doing it.
That is in fact common, but would also not result in “moving in” or “forming a polyamorous trio”. That’s exactly not the point, it’s just one person having two relationships and - hopefully - each of the partners is fine with not having 100% of their partner. Which many people actively enjoy mind you, not spending all the time sitting on top of one another.
In fact I would say that from all the poly couples I’ve know over the years, very few are trouples and want to move in together.
I was going to offer my anecdotal subversion of that argument, that the boyfriend/husband is the one to suggest it, but then I remembered I was the one who pushed for it. Granted, it was because I was having testosterone issues and I encouraged my wife to pick up a side partner, so she wouldn’t have to suffer with me. We are a very indulgent couple, and I could tell the dry spell was wearing on her.
Of polyamorous relationships, I will say two things:
Before you even consider opening a relationship, you must have absolute trust in your partner. There can be no lies, no half truths, no omissions. If you can’t meet this, don’t even bother trying. It will only drive a wedge between you.
It really, really helps if you are both queer. It really levels the playing field, as either way you slice it, there will be far fewer available females than males.
I just don’t get it. Having a relationship with one person is hard work (anyone that says otherwise is either very lucky or their partner is making all the effort). Why on earth would you want to make your life even more difficult?
Tbh, my wife and I have been together for so long and through so much that is has become easy. We’ve been together more than fifteen years, and both of us consider our childhoods of abuse to be the hardest periods of our lives. We know and trust each other deeply and implicitly. She’s had an increasingly serious second partner for more than five years now, and it’s become pretty easy. I’m casually looking for a boyfriend, and she’s excited for me. It’s the foundational strength of our relationship that makes this lifestyle possible. We’ve built a big, full life together, and we have enough love and space in our lives to share <3
For some of us at some times in our lives, having a relationship with two people is less work. It requires much more communication, better scheduling, and much more attention to your partners’ feelings … but that might be a good investment of time anyhow, and often gets overlooked.
I find that having multiple partners helps me appreciate each partner much more, for themselves – it’s easy to mix up how much you love just having a partner and being loved, with how you actually feel about that person. Poly gives you the distance and contrast to see your partners clearly, and that can be really special.
I’ve never been polyamorous but I have been a player before and a period during which I had lots and lots of casual sex with lots of different women actually gave me a better appreciation of women as individuals.
There’s something about not having one person be your everything that allows them to be a real person instead of a symbol.
Yeah that’s indeed something. I had a sex partner on top of my romantic partner for a few years, and that worked okay - since you only meet for shagging - but wow would two romantic partners be too much for me. Still, I was perfectly fine with my romantic partner also having another partner in addition to me. They could handle it fine!
This is so strange to me. Not the polyamory, the weird hate of it. I’m in a monogamous relationship and polyamory just doesn’t appeal to me. But I don’t really give a shit about what other people do or who they fuck as long as it’s consentual.
To me it always feels as if people are just loudly signaling their own unhappiness in their existing relationship when they hate on polyamory. It’s a weird form of surpressed and internalized envy.
No hate from me but two is almost too many people for me. I love my SO, I just have a really hard time being around anyone for any length of time. Different strokes for different folks.
I’ve been in poly relationships for years. They work really well for me and my significant others, but we are pretty discreet about it because folks tend to be huge assholes about it.
Generally, you don’t see the poly relationships that work great; mostly, people see the type of scenario one of your other commenters described because the stable relationships are less visible.
Here I am surprised that a person is surprised that non-preferred sexual acts would trigger visceral disgust.
I mean, sex is actively disgusting unless your partner just happens to have the right combination of signals to transform it into something non-disgusting.
The wonder is that any sex ever is seen as non-disgusting.
ehhh bodies are pretty gross. teeth in places mashin up stuff, grimy bacteria in all the folds and crevasses, stinky sweaty fluids and excretions, there’s tons of stuff in the human body that is either conceptually quite horrifying or that we are downright neurologically programmed to be disgusted by. the eroticism of it all really just allows us to look past the disgust and see desire, joy, pleasure. that’s the subjective element.
that dude was dumb for thinking polyamory is a sex act though lol
I’ve not met many poly groups but my experience was strained. First time meeting these people and the only thing they spoke about was them being poly and how much sex they were having. It was a bit odd for a first meeting with strangers. Not usual dinner conversation I felt.
Yeah, the polycules I’ve met have all been hot messes that caused a lot of pain for everyone involved (and adjacent). At least a few have this attitude of “Monogamous people are prudes and need to open up, polyamory is HoW hUmAnS sHoUlD lIvE”. Maybe it’s just bad luck, but as a result I generally keep a bit more distance with my poly friends.
Which is the reason I do not support polyamory. They are unstable beings whose life revolves around chimping it out with their genitals. Polyamory has existed among animals and in many old civilisations like the Indus civilisation, and those practices are very harmful for everyone involved at the end of it.
I was given the justification of “animals also do it” by some communists, and since then I maintain distance and walk on my own path of leftism. If someone calls me a misogynist and rightwinger for it, I am happy to be called one.