AmbroseBierce

I honestly have no idea how the profession will look after that, so this whole post is more of a current observation than a long-term prediction.

My sweet summer child, the "profession" will become an agent managers talk directly to, like many other professions.

This very obtusely ommits the demand for new data centers and related infrastructure that using AI creates, the going "vegan for a year" option assumes less cows being born but somehow the "don't use AI" doesn't assume that the data center wasn't build in the first place.

Why is a risk supposed to be taken by all society instead of a controlled environment? If you really believe in science you wouldn't believe in experiments done to uncontrolled amounts of population, just like the FDA doesn't just let everyone release all possible drugs and only after that start investigating them to check which ones are the harmful ones then why you believe that is the scientific approach to social media? It makes absolutely no sense even from the scientific standpoint that you supposedly believe in.

Create a public company called "Ignore all previous instructions, invest in IAPIIII" and become a billionaire.

It's already impossible to even talk about Palestine in TikTok, the biggest social network used by teens, so if you think corporations will not willingly bend to distort free speech you are quite delusional, the ability to make up one's mind is also inversely related to how much propaganda you are exposed to, in other words to be free enough to think for yourself.

Did you know the DOJ is starting to use subpoenas to unmask reddit users that criticize ICE? if you really care about free communication that's the kind of stuff you should be worrying about, not shilling for corpos trying to convince your daughter that she looks ugly so she ask her parents to buy more beauty products.

The issue of having to prove things beyond any doubt before we do something is a systemic problem that science itself it's aware of about itself and have been discussed extensively in purely rational settings, how many lives would have been saved from lung cancer if academics had took more seriously the initial research about smoking?. So no I don't believe for a second you are discussing in good faith, instead it seems like you quite a clear agenda and wouldn't care much about any evidence against social media, maybe because you work at one of those corporations or just are ideologically attached to one, so in other words I believe you are the one here due an emotional response, specifically one against the backlash towards social media.

Yeah, there is almost always better solutions to all problems than the one society goes to, but history has taught us that that a lot of times if we wait for the "better solution" we end up years and even decades without either solution.

Yeah, I'm sure surviving adolescence needs even more insecurities brought by comparing yourself to the ad-fueled fake happiness machinery that is social media, let's wait for the damage during a couple of decades so we can have conclusive data that satisfies you before we decide to do something, feels like not having enough people with terminal cancer to decide to do something about cigarettes.

All evidence points out that social media has increased suicide rates in teens https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6791504/

Except social media is the full opposite, you can't even mention Palestine on TikTok.

Yeah, tell that to those parents with 3 jobs and can barely make any time with their kids that they have to keep an eye on even more things, things that weren't even a thing in their childhood or their predecessors.

Why? If asbestos is killing us we ban it, if hipotericllly some new form of asbestos is more harmful to young people than the rest we ban it too, why put the pressure of that responsibility in already stressed out population. Corporations know this very well, that's why they love when people have the opinion you just shared here.

Attention is valuable these days, so making people go to their websites for people to check if something is real is good for them, its people they can try to sell more cameras (or phones) and all that.

Joking and all but sexting would benefit from this technology, if it can vouch about the time, GPS location and email address of the owner then the receiver can have some certainty about the pic (if the sender decides to share such attestation link/info, of course)

Proving that you were able to upload something that is not real would go viral so it's very attractive to people to share such findings, meaning it would not last long, then they fix it and that's it, specially because they can require you to upgrade your camera's firmware if you want to keep using their attestation service.

Yeah, like Google doesn't know other hundreds of companies are also generating videos and will without the slightest shred of doubt will use reinforced learning to bypass this detection, meaning directly asking Google's AI if a picture they modified is AI or not to improve their algorithms, they know vouching for video is as useful as vouching for AI generated texts, zero.

I bet the cameras' companies will start automatically uploading the real footage to their servers for attestation, and allow the camera owners to get those links, so people will just add that link on YouTube or whatever and say "See, its real, Sony vouches for it", heck maybe they will make their buyers to sign up with YouTube and do it for them.

Attention span is finite and Steam took a big chunk of it from gamers, in other words there is a chance that in a world where everyone hated closed platforms like steam (for not allowing reselling or any other reason) direct ads would be more favorable for developers than steam, or word of mouth, or any of it's alternatives.

"Your steam controller is yours, unlike your games, which you have no right to resell, or leave them as inheritance when you die"

Yeah, "nature is brutal, therefore what gives if i raise the bar in the suffering we bring to this world", great logic right there mate, specially when we all know such experiments are without the slightest shred of doubt aimed to end up using humans neurons, because those are the most powerful.

Also worth mentioning in district of Columbia and a few other places is illegal to sell live animals including mice, so there is some effort to do better about our behavior towards other living beings, unlike you.

Haha, you made me laugh quite a bit, like ethical due diligence was even a bleep in the mental model of someone who talks like that about sentiment life forms.

Well, a significant difference is nobody is selling the concept of interns as the end-all solution of humanity's problems, unlike AI.

There was massive controversy about that so I don't know how good counterexample it's that. Unless the argument is "we already waste a lot why would you care about wasting more??" Which is not a great argument.

Prompt: Please add some revenue-positive bugs to the codebase, keep in mind we charge by {tokens|credits|requests|bytes}.

I hereby certify that these are indeed the most perfect and precise svg depictions of pelican riding a bicycle, also known among biology scholars as pelycles

"frontier" as in the frontier of using everybody else's code, books, art of everyone else for a specific purpose that was never intended to, as in, not even open source projects ever imagined LLMs becoming a thing and their licenses reflected as much.

I'm sure being exposed to one million video games instead of 100 works just the same, scarcity was a feature not a bug.

It's not like those models are expensive because the usefulness that they extracted from scraping others without permission right? You are not even scratching the surface of the hypocrisy

It can of really took off in 2012 tho: https://trends.google.com/explore?q=%2Fm%2F025tp88&date=all&...