I’m all for unique and clear identifiers for everything, including people, but jesus christ, imagine yourself in elementary school having a weird name. Why would parents choose a hard mode for their progeny?
I guess if everyone has a weird name, that doesn’t matter. Maybe kids don’t make fun of weird names anymore. Who knows, maybe it’s the Johns and Marys who get made fun of for having uninteresting names.
I’m a big proponent of normal/semi obscure normal first name, weird middle name. John W Smith if you work in sales, J Wolfgang Smith if you’re an author. Perfect compromise.
We gave our daughter a somewhat disused but normal and formerly not uncommon name which was the name of a plant. We just wanted a name that wasn’t religious but still normal enough that she wouldn’t get bullied for it (she got bullied anyway). We realized later that it actually made sense in terms of her ancestry because her mother has a plant name, her grandmother has a plant name and her great-grandmother had a plant name. One long lineage of plant names.
Honestly being bullied for a weird name just feels like victim blaming. It’s just someone else’s shitty behaviour we’re expected to dance around? That was the one problem with the name.
I don’t disagree, but it’s also a parental responsibility, in my opinion, to help your child avoid bullying. It’s not possible to avoid entirely, but there are definitely ways to make it worse. And a weird name is one of them.
Dude I see you around here on the regular, so I’ll mention that this is ironic for me to read this, because we also named our daughter an old, obscure but “real” name that is also a plant (a flower, specifically).
It’s from France, so I asked a French friend before using it if it was ok to use and not a weird name, and they said “sure it’s ok, but it’s like an old grandma’s name no one uses anymore.” And that’s when I knew it was the one!
Same boat. I think I guessed it, and it’s absolutely killing me knowing I’ll never know if I’m right. But also, my brain itch doesn’t trump doxxing a person (or even a squid) or their kid.
It’s a pretty common practice where I live for a kid to be named after someone for their first name, but go by their middle name. So I think it’s perfectly fine to have one normal name and one weird name in any order.
A. John Smith is an accountant. Atreyu J. Smith is a musician who wears leather pants and some sort of studded headband.
In the fall of 2019, Vandyck sponsored the Marijuana Pepsi Scholarship for first-generation African-American students at UW–Whitewater.
If someone with a brand name… name… starts a same-industry business in their name, or offers a scholarship for nazis, I wonder what kind of recourse the original brand has.
My name is a standard name, but super uncommon here. It’s not that bad, since I got picked on about as much as anyone else. It’s not like they won’t just because your name is unremarkable.
If you don’t get bullied for your name, you’ll just get bullied for something else. At least with the name you can blame it on your parents, maybe. Kids are assholes.
This overlooks that 100% cotton jeans will break down when they are discarded (unlike polyester and nylon). A good pair of jeans can be mended and worn for many years instead of a new pair every year. Jeans can lead a very useful “after life” as insulation or be recycled into new fabric.
It also ignores the chemicals and energy required to turn beechwood and bamboo into wearable fabric.
I don’t know what the solution is but natural fabrics aren’t the enemy.
you make a good point about how clothing doesn’t just exist for the life of the first wearing. Impact also looks largely at how it’s discarded and washed and that is a huge factor.
Cotton isnt leaving behind microplastics in your water like polyester. So even the shower claim is non comparable. At least the water is left cleaner with with cotton.
But then we can’t be too ideal like they aren’t taking up space on the planet to produce. Like how people were about ecars Vs combustible.
My friend are you completely ignoring ethical nudism here? Fabric and clothing is just a capitalist mind game to shame you into covering yourself. We were born naked and goddammit I’ll die naked.
I too believe the youths are destroying our glorious language… look at the stately meme, reduced to this confusing image. We must start over with Esperanto! 
To be honest, I kind of just pulled it out of my ass because the whole comment was a joke.
I don’t really know that much about Esperanto other then the notion that by creating a new language all mankind could be unified and peaceful. This seems hopelessly utopian to me, but also compelling and delightful… so it’s always bouncing around in the back of my mind.
We definitely get a little peeved if it’s under 15, but frankly those people aren’t worth getting mad at. Someone else always comes by and makes up for it anyways
Plus, it’s unprofessional, awkward, and generally pointless to actually say something about it.
You still need your chatbot to stick to business rules and act like a real customer service rep, and that’s incredibly hard to accomplish with generative models where you cannot be there to evaluate the generated answers and where the chatbot can go on a tangent and suddenly start to give you free therapy when you originally went in to order pizza.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re great for many applications within the manual loop. They can help customer service reps (as one example) function better, provide more help to users, and dedicate more time to those who still need a human to solve their issues.
Companies are already replacing some workforce with LLMs.
My opinion right now is that companies want you to believe they are 100% capable of replacing humans, but that’s because people in upper management never listen to the damn developers down in the basement (aka me), so they have an unrealistic expectation of AI coupled with an unending desire for money and success.
They are replacing them because they are greedy cunts, not because they are replaceable.
LLMs are excellent at producing high-volume, low-quality material. And it’s a sad fact of life that a lot of companies are perfectly willing to use low quality material in their work.
You still need your chatbot to stick to business rules and act like a real customer service rep, and that’s incredibly hard to accomplish with generative models
Isn’t that what, for instance, OpenAI’s embeddings are for?
My opinion right now is that companies want you to believe they are 100% capable of replacing humans
Probably, but at the moment they can only do it partially.
They are replacing them because they are greedy cunts, not because they are replaceable.
I partially agree. I mean, they are greedy cunts but some tasks like translating from/to certain languages can be easily done even with the free ChatGPT demo with better results than Google Translate, so human translators are unfortunately becoming quite replaceable.
The word embeddings and embedding layers are there to represent data in ways that allow the model to make use of them to generate text. It’s not the same as the model acting as a human. It may sound like a human in text or even speech, but its reasoning skills are questionable at best. You can try to make it stick to your company policy but it will never (at this level) be able to operate under logic unless you hardcode that logic into it. This is not really possible with these models in that sense of the word, after all they just predict the best next word to say. You’d have to wrap them around with a shit ton of code and safety nets.
GPT models require massive amounts of data, so they were only that good at languages for which we have massive texts or Wikipedias. If your language doesn’t have good content on the internet or freely available digitalized content on which to train, a machine can still not replace translators (yet, no idea how long this will take until transfer learning is so good we can use it to translate low-resource languages to match the quality of English - French, for example).
While I don’t agree with anti-AI people, the fact that some AI generated content is flawed doesn’t imply that all AI content is of bad quality.
Companies are already replacing some workforce with LLMs.
While I understand that not everyone shares the same views about AI, it’s important to recognize that just because some AI-generated content might have flaws, it shouldn’t lead us to believe that every piece created by AI is subpar. In fact, numerous companies are actively embracing the use of LLMs to replace their workforces. From astronauts to circus clowns, LLMs are taking over roles once reserved for humans. Nowadays, you can even find LLMs crafting the perfect soufflé at Michelin star restaurants, performing heart surgery, and even serving as head coaches for professional sports teams. The sky is no longer the limit, as LLMs have found a way to transcend it - and it’s only a matter of time before they take on the role of Santa Claus. Merry Christmas from your new AI overlords!
It feels like you don’t think the people making these decisions see employee salaries as anything but a line item to minimize or “customer service” as a cost liability. They don’t care about customer experience. Hell, they actively want people to get frustrated and give up because it saves the company money.
see employee salaries as anything but a line item to minimize
YES. With and without AI in the mix, anything to maximize benefits. Companies would have a full workforce formed by unpaid slaves if they could. Many companies get rid of their oldest and best paid employees to replace them with cheaper ones. Videogame studios fired employees right after a new game was finished just so they didn’t have to pay any benefits to the devs. We are nothing but a medium to make the top execs of a company richer.
It implies a lack of justification, like there is no good reason girls hands are like that. Not sure why everyone is confused. It’s a meme format that has been around forever.
Yes I’m aware of the meme. Still don’t get how “nothing was said by nobody” implies that, since it’s an incoherent concept - such a double negative surely implies someone said something?
That is the only version that actually makes sense. It literally comes out as “no one said anything”. Isn’t that what’s supposed to be implied: there was silence, interrupted by something no one asked for?
A surprising amount of people get their knickers in a twist over it, which is pretty funny tbh. I like to put it in a lot of my memes just to piss people off haha
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.