mechoman444

Iron supplement.

… 😐

No… No one owns the moon… I think there’s treaties.

But not screenshot resolution.

You know, it’s stuff like this that continues to irritate me to absolutely no end.

These dumbass chatbots you are referring to have already significantly changed the industry, for better or worse. The change has occurred. There are already so many things happening with these LLMs that are changing the way industries operate, and they aren’t even that good yet. Your personal bias against this technology has absolutely nothing to do with its applications.

The changes will increasingly be about computational power and the ability to process information at speeds and scales we have never seen before.

And this is where the potential of AGI becomes enormous.

Imagine an entity or device capable of taking essentially the entirety of human knowledge available to it, understanding the relationships between that information, reasoning across multiple fields simultaneously, and processing it at a speed and scale no human being could ever match. Now imagine that system being able to conduct research, identify patterns, generate and test hypotheses, design experiments, write software, analyze enormous datasets, and continuously improve its understanding of a problem.

That isn’t magic. That is essentially the direction this technology is moving toward. Current LLMs are crude and limited compared with what a true AGI would theoretically be capable of, but they are already demonstrating the basic premise: machines can process and synthesize information in ways that are extremely useful to humans.

An AGI capable of reliably doing those things could provide an absolutely massive advantage to humanity. Scientific research that takes teams of humans years could potentially be accelerated dramatically. Complex engineering problems could be attacked from thousands of different approaches simultaneously. Medical research, materials science, energy production, climate modeling, mathematics, and countless other fields could benefit from having an intelligence capable of working continuously across enormous bodies of information.

That doesn’t mean AGI would automatically make everything better. There are enormous risks, economic consequences, alignment problems, and questions about who controls such a system. Those are legitimate things to debate.

But dismissing the technology because you personally dislike current LLM chatbots doesn’t answer the question of what the technology could become.

Go use the technology. Stop being a Luddite when it comes to LLMs. It is already being used as a tool. It already does things that are useful and makes many tasks easier for humans. I know that’s an unpopular opinion on this platform, but it remains true regardless of how much you dislike the technology.

And, for the record, we have not fed “all of human knowledge” into an LLM. These systems are trained on enormous collections of available data, and there are legitimate and significant controversies surrounding the inclusion of copyrighted material in those datasets. Whether copyrighted works should be used for AI training without permission or compensation is a completely legitimate question. But that issue is separate from whether the underlying technology has useful applications.

The point is that AGI doesn’t need to possess every piece of human knowledge to be revolutionary. It needs to be capable of acquiring, understanding, reasoning about, and applying information at a scale and speed that humans cannot match.

If we ever achieve that, the question won’t be whether AGI can benefit humanity. The question will be how humanity chooses to use an intelligence with capabilities vastly beyond those of any individual human being.

So hear me out.

From a purely strategic standpoint, the ultimate goal is artificial general intelligence. Eventually, humanity is going to get there. The question is who gets there first, and what they do with it.

The country that achieves genuinely transformative AGI first could potentially gain an enormous strategic advantage. And if AGI is capable of significantly accelerating AI research itself, that advantage could compound very quickly: AGI helps develop better AI, which accelerates scientific and technological development, which produces even more capable AI.

Whoever gets there second may not necessarily be permanently incapable of catching up, but they could find themselves facing a massive technological and economic gap that becomes increasingly difficult to close.

And here’s where I think things get uncomfortable.

The countries competing to develop this technology are not necessarily going to have the same restrictions. Some countries may be considerably less concerned about copyright, training data, ethical restrictions, censorship, or what subjects an AI is permitted to discuss.

I’m not saying those concerns aren’t legitimate. They absolutely are. But from a purely geopolitical standpoint, there is a potential danger in one country imposing significant self-restraints while its competitors don’t.

Because if AGI really does become as transformative as many people believe it could be, this isn’t just another technology race. It could become a race over scientific advancement, industrial capacity, military technology, economic productivity, and potentially the ability to develop even more advanced AI.

And, honestly, I would rather the United States and other democratic countries reach that point first than China, North Korea, or another highly authoritarian state.

That doesn’t mean I think democratic countries are incapable of abusing powerful technology. Of course they are. The point is that who controls a technology this powerful matters enormously.

So when people talk about AI development purely in terms of corporate profits or whether AI companies should be allowed to train on particular datasets, I think they’re sometimes missing the much larger geopolitical picture.

We’re potentially talking about a technology that could fundamentally alter the balance of power between nations.

That’s a very different conversation.

Disclaimer: I’m not necessarily advocating for AI or LLMs here. I’m simply trying to look at the situation from a purely strategic/geopolitical perspective and consider how governments and other actors might view the race toward AGI.

Hi.

Atheist here.

This is bad.

But understandable. Christians are ok with this because they think they’re going to go to heaven and be with God and bask in his ever lasting glory or some shit.

Hope they haven’t been wearing mixed cloth clothing or shaved their beards.

What you said isn’t an analogy… What?

No. That’s… That’s completely wrong.

It is amazing how y’all don’t know how any of this tech works.

Linus Torvalds used it to fix some code but it’s like a Photoshop filter? Come on man… You can’t be that intentionally ignorant.

Go do some research. Jesus.

Look I’m not some kind of supporter or fan boy but even I know how utterly reductive and incorrect what you said is.

Some of a bitch!

Just a few days ago, I argued with a douche nozzle who told me, with the confidence of a master debater, that AI has no useful purpose.

But apparently, not all of you feel that way. Linus uses AI and suddenly y’all change your tune! What a load of crap!

I’ve been sitting here saying for years that AI is a tool and should be used as such, while getting called a tech-bro simp for saying it.

Man, this has once again revealed the massive, two-faced, bandwagon nature of Lemmy.

Y’all should have stayed on Reddit!

Not sure what to think about this… On one hand good. On the other hand the system that deported him is the product of pure evil.

Then again watching them eat each other alive is amusing in its own right.

Matt Walsh is a walking trashcan lid flapping in the wind.

Carl Sagan wrote a whole book about Billions and Billions. Excellent read. Also can’t recommend Pale Blue Dot enough.

I watched this last night, and honestly, aside from the buddy system that nobody asked for and what appears to be some kind of morality/criminal profile system that makes very little sense in a GTA setting, I saw remarkably little that actually interested me.

Yes, it looks absolutely gorgeous. Yes, there are heavy plot elements, impressive character animations, and an enormous amount of polish. But underneath all of that, I’m not seeing much that makes me think, “Holy shit, this is what GTA needed to become.”

And that’s what concerns me.

My fear isn’t that GTA VI is going to be bad. It’s that Rockstar has spent all this time trying to “innovate” when they really didn’t need to. GTA already has an incredibly successful formula. Give us a massive, reactive sandbox, better AI, smarter police, deeper heists, more emergent gameplay, better vehicle physics, and more freedom in how we approach things. That’s innovation enough.

I don’t need GTA to become Red Dead Redemption with cars, a morality system, relationship mechanics, and a heavily scripted narrative.

I’m also increasingly worried about the industry’s tendency to try to appeal to the broadest possible audience while simultaneously designing around increasingly specific demographics. You can end up with a game that technically has something for everyone but somehow loses the thing that made people love the franchise in the first place.

Just look at the new Wolverine game. That’s exactly the sort of direction I’m afraid of seeing more often: taking an established property and deciding that it needs to be something fundamentally different rather than simply making an excellent version of what people already liked.

All Rockstar had to do was make another GTA. They didn’t need to reinvent the wheel.

I really hope I’m wrong about this. Because if GTA VI turns out to be an incredible open-world crime sandbox underneath all the cinematic presentation, I’ll be the first person to shut up and enjoy it.

Please be right, Rockstar.

I’ve tried everything it eventually doesn’t update all on its own regardless of you wanting to do it or not. So I just stop trying to fight it.

This source doesn’t establish what you think it establishes.

First, it’s a September 2021 infographic, updated in February 2024, not some contemporary study demonstrating that “AI in general” is racially prejudiced. More importantly, the subject here is health-care algorithms, and the article is specifically discussing algorithms that were deliberately designed to use race as a variable or that learned disparities from historical health-care data.

In fact, the source explicitly says that these systems can unintentionally increase existing racial biases through the explicit use of race in predicting outcomes and risk. That’s not evidence that AI possesses racial prejudice. It’s evidence that humans designed algorithms using race as a predictive variable, despite race being a poor proxy for genetic differences. The article even gives examples of medical algorithms where researchers subsequently removed race from the calculation.

That’s an extremely important distinction you’re completely glossing over.

If I build an algorithm that says “Black = higher risk” and the algorithm consequently produces a racial disparity, I’ve demonstrated that my algorithm contains a problematic racial assumption. I have not demonstrated that “AI is inherently racist.” Likewise, if an algorithm uses health-care spending as a proxy for how sick someone is, and that proxy reflects existing racial disparities in access to health care, the resulting bias comes from the data and the proxy, not some intrinsic racial prejudice possessed by the AI.

And your source actually undermines the broader claim you’re trying to make. It explicitly discusses AI being used to reduce racial disparities and cites research where algorithmic approaches improved outcomes or reduced unexplained disparities.

So yes, algorithmic bias in health care is a real and well-documented problem. Nobody is disputing that. What you’re doing is taking evidence that specific algorithms can encode or reproduce human biases and extrapolating it into “AI itself is racially prejudiced.”

That’s not what your source says, and it isn’t what the evidence demonstrates.

Lol refund. I just use the batch file to activate Windows 11.

What? That’s not even remotely how that works.

A human being is also shaped by the information they’ve encountered throughout their life. You’ve encountered racism, stupidity, misinformation, and countless other forms of bad information. That doesn’t mean you automatically become racist, stupid, or incapable of distinguishing good information from bad information.

AI works similarly in the sense that its training data contains an enormous amount of contradictory, inaccurate, biased, and outright terrible information. The mere presence of that information in the training data does not logically imply that the resulting model possesses those characteristics.

And AI isn’t “dumb” or “smart” in the way you’re describing. Those are human cognitive attributes. The relevant question is what a model can actually do, what patterns it has learned, and how reliably it performs a given task.

You don’t like AI. Fine. But you clearly don’t understand how it works, and this is an unfortunately constant problem on this platform. People make an assumption about AI, then present that assumption as though they’ve discovered some fundamental truth about the technology.

Misinformation is misinformation. It doesn’t become correct because you think the conclusion is morally justified. You didn’t figure out anything about AI here. You made an assumption and called it true.

All, I’m saying if you’re going to critique something, at least know what you’re critiquing or criticizing.

Also before anybody makes any more assumptions, what happen here is absolutely mind-blowingly horrific. Using csam to train anything is just terrible and exploitive. I’m very sorry for doe for having to continuously go through this.

Also also the people responsible for this should be charged with possession of CSAM and prosecuted in a court of law.

Disclaimer: Disagreeing with someone’s argument, pointing out flaws in their reasoning, or interpreting their position differently does not automatically make it a straw man. For example, if I say, “I think we should reduce military spending,” and you respond, “You think we should completely eliminate the military,” you have created a straw man. You are arguing against a position I never actually took.

They really did get hacked. It was pretty bad. But also canvas is horrific. It’s an absolute cluster fuck. It’s confusing. Hard to navigate and doesn’t present information in any way that makes any sense at all. But then again, what the hell was I expecting… Back in my day we used actual books in school.

For the people not using Linux in the comment section, you can’t skip a Windows update. It’s going to happen no matter what.

I mean I guess you can adjust the registry or whatever but 90% of Windows users aren’t going to do any of that.

I could have done it and I didn’t. I updated and now my cursor is all fucked up.

Shit dress them up in Walmart tactical gear give them some cheapo balaclava call them ice and tell the fucker they’re there to take them to an award ceremony… Then black bag him in the back of the van.