People who are using it to solve problems which require equivalent effort of writing a sufficient prompt and just directly solving it without AI at all for sure are AI folk.
I’ve seen some people on Twitter complain that their coworkers use ChatGPT to write emails or summarize text. To me this just echoes the complaints made by previous generations against phones and calculators. There’s a lot of vitriol directed at anyone who isn’t staunchly anti AI and dares to use a convenient tool that’s avaliable to them.
I think my main issue with that use case is that it’s a “solution” to a relatively minor problem (which has a far simpler solution), that actually compounds the problem.
Let’s say I don’t want to write prose for my email, I have a list of bullet points I want to get across. Awesome, I feed it into the chat gippity and boom, my points are (hopefully) property represented in prose.
Now, the recipient doesn’t want to read prose. ESPECIALLY if it’s the fluffy wordy-internet-recipe-preamble that the chat gippity tends to produce. They want a bullet point summary. So they feed it into the chat gippity to get what is (hopefully) a properly condensed bullet point summary.
So, suddenly we have introduced a fallible middle translation layer for actually no reason.
Just write the clear bullet point email in the first place. Save everyone the time. Save everyone from the 2 chances for the chat gippity to fuck it up.
Are you implying that dream is an AI? Or do people like, upload AI copies of him?
If it’s the former, that’s absurd. If it’s the latter, that doesn’t prove consciousness. AI voice replication is done by text to speech. A conscious human would type out what the voice should say.
I work in the tech industry so I am forced to understand new technologies. This one is unique in that it plays on the human brain’s innate tendency to anthropomorphize things.
It also does a great job of presenting information
Tbh, it’s not a fairy tale but an illustrated children’s book written in 1845 by Heinrich Hoffman for his three year old kid. It was one of the first illustrated books, so it is considered to be one of the first comic books. Each story has a morale but is way over the top.
Interestingly a lot of the descibed behavior is known to be with ADHD or anorexia, today.
Growing up in Germany I always find Struwelpeter a quite horrible book (yes, I too had it a kid).
I guess it’s also kinda “woke” by today’s standards, because there’s a story in which a couple of boys make fun of a black kid and get punished by a giant wizard who dips them in ink so they’re black, too.
That one’s awful because their “punishment” is to be made black, making the moral more like, “Don’t make fun of the poor wretch that was born that way.”
I don’t know. It’s punishing with something they themselves think of as a bad thing, not necessarily their judge. It’s not uncommon to punish with the very thing someone hates or what is related to the crime (community service for behaving asocial, for example)
Drinking coffee all day then smoking some weed at night is so much better than drinking coffee all day and then drinking alcohol. This works better for me than any cocktail of adhd medication I’ve ever had or been prescribed. It’ll be a sad day when they finally get delta hemp banned.
The vast majority of the original versions of fairy tales are gruesome. It’s not the author, but the time they were written down/spoken/shown that matters.
Since the witch was shoved in there by the kids to prevent her from cooking and eating them rather than to try and cleanse the world of witches, I’d say it wasn’t fairy tales’ fault. Something like Der Giftpilz would be more to blame.
just about as many people smoked as didn’t, back in the day. if you didn’t smoke, you still had ashtrays in the house, for when people came to visit.
when they first tried to control smoking on planes, it wasn’t “no smoking at all” it was “let’s at least have a non-smoking section”–it was seen as absurd that there even be a corner of the plane where one couldn’t smoke.
I’ve read that aircraft mechanics were sad when smoking stopped because the nicotine smears on the aircraft were such a good visual clue of where air was leaking and it made theirs jobs a lot easier.
I’m renovating a house that was last inhabited by smokers. My first attempt at painting inside led to the just-applied paint flowing down from the tops of the walls overnight.
I was on a plane in the very early 90’s, and I remember being about 10 years old and the second the ‘smoking okay’ sign came on, a WALL of smoke rolled back through the curtains that separated the sections.
I first started eating out regularly in the '80s, and even now I will occasionally randomly ask to be seated in a restaurant’s non-smoking section. It’s surreal to think that was ever a thing.
I’m starting to forget that these things existed, because I’m old enough to remember a time when there was such a thing as a smoking/non-smoking section in restaurants but it feels like an entire lifetime ago that it was actually relevant to the point now where it would be a massive culture shock to see somebody light up indoors anywhere, let alone in a restaurant.
I like to point to indoor smoking bans and seatbelt laws as actual evidence of how a culture war backed up with science and facts can be sustained and won even against seemingly insurmountable odds to the benefit of society as a whole. In both of those cases, the data eventually won out against the multibillion dollar industries that were resisting regulation as well as the “muh freedom” crowd.
Man used to be used the way we use the word “human” in modern English, with there being modifiers to signify male or female. At some point we just dropped modifiers for male and decided “man” meant male. However man is still used as a general term for people. There’s definitely patriarchal connotations to it but that’s why you still see it.
Yes, which is why the appropriate response to someone pointing out the discrepancy is “you’re right, I may or may not care enough to do something about my own casual usage of the language” not being a condescending ass linking a definition that everyone knows because that wasn’t the point of bringing it up.
the appropriate response to someone pointing out the discrepancy is “you’re right, I may or may not care enough to do something about my own casual usage of the language” shut the fuck up we all know what’s meant here
FTFY
If this is true:
linking a definition that everyone knows
Then they already knew they’re being a pedantic jackass and wanted to do it anyway. The correct response to a person like that is dismissal, as they’re providing nothing to the conversation.
lemmyshitpost
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.