Also worth noting that:

1. AI is arguably a surveillance technology that’s built on decades of our patterns

2. The US government is increasingly authoritarian and has expressed interest in throwing neurodivergent people into labor camps

3. Large AI companies like OpenAI are signing contracts with the Department of defense

If I were a US citizen, I would be avoiding discussing my personal life with AI like the plague.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Political intervention is what started Google, so I don’t see the problem.

How about taking responsibility and just not using services that require it.

Google has shaped the web into what it is over decades so that they could maintain their position of power. This is the very essence and purpose of a monopoly. Yet here you are trying to blame anything but the monopoly for the monopoly’s existence.

Nothing like convincing hundreds of millions of people to abandon a company rather than put any pressure on the small group of greedy people who own it.

https://www.news9.com/story/684dace4a1153dbb612a5b30/minnesota-shooting-suspect-manifesto-found

How did law enforcement know to go to Melissa Hortman’s home?

Bruley said his department assisted the Champlin Police Department, and an “intuitive sergeant” decided to check on Rep. Melissa Hortman’s home in Brooklyn Park to be proactive.

They just knew to go to the house of some politician on “intuition?” Seems a little sus IMO.

my experience was that Wikipedia was specifically called out as being especially unreliable and that’s just nonsense.

Let me clarify then. It’s unreliable as a cited source in Academia. I’m drawing parallels and criticizing the way people use chatgpt. I.e. taking it at face value with zero caution and using it as if it’s a primary source of information.

Eesh. The value of a tertiary source is that it cites the secondary sources (which cite the primary). If you strip that out, how’s it different from “some guy told me…”? I think your professors did a bad job of teaching you about how to read sources. Maybe because they didn’t know themselves. :-(

Did you read beyond the sentence that you quoted?

Here:

I can get summarized information about new languages and frameworks really quickly, and then I can dive into the official documentation when I have a high level understanding of the topic at hand.

Example: you’re a junior developer trying to figure out what this JavaScript syntax is const {x} = response?.data. It’s difficult to figure out what destructuring and optional chaining are without knowing what they’re called.

With Chatgpt, you can copy and paste that code and ask “tell me what every piece of syntax is in this line of Javascript.” Then you can check the official docs to learn more.

I think the academic advice about Wikipedia was sadly mistaken.

Yeah, a lot of people had your perspective about Wikipedia while I was in college, but they are wrong, according to Wikipedia.

From the link:

We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki. Anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn’t be citing Wikipedia. This is good advice for all tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information.

I personally use ChatGPT like I would Wikipedia. It’s a great introduction to a subject, especially in my line of work, which is software development. I can get summarized information about new languages and frameworks really quickly, and then I can dive into the official documentation when I have a high level understanding of the topic at hand. Unfortunately, most people do not use LLMs this way.

You shouldn’t cite Wikipedia because it is not a source of information, it is a summary of other sources which are referenced.

Right, and if an LLM is citing Wikipedia 47.9% of the time, that means that it’s summarizing Wikipedia’s summary.

You shouldn’t cite Wikipedia for the same reason you shouldn’t cite a library’s book report, you should read and cite the book itself.

Exactly my point.

Throughout most of my years of higher education as well as k-12, I was told that sourcing Wikipedia was forbidden. In fact, many professors/teachers would automatically fail an assignment if they felt you were using wikipedia. The claim was that the information was often inaccurate, or changing too frequently to be reliable. This reasoning, while irritating at times, always made sense to me.

Fast forward to my professional life today. I’ve been told on a number of occasions that I should trust LLMs to give me an accurate answer. I’m told that I will “be left behind” if I don’t use ChatGPT to accomplish things faster. I’m told that my concerns of accuracy and ethics surrounding generative AI is simply “negativity.”

These tools are (abstractly) referencing random users on the internet as well as Wikipedia and treating them both as legitimate sources of information. That seems crazy to me. How can we trust a technology that just references flawed sources from our past? I know there’s ways to improve accuracy with things like RAG, but most people are hitting the LLM directly.

The culture around Generative AI should be scientific and cautious, but instead it feels like a cult with a good marketing team.

Don’t threaten me with a good time!

Hell yeah - FMA has so many good side characters!

I spent years trying to convince my friends and family that Elon musk sucks, and then he just went off the deepend. Im glad it’s widely known how much he sucks now, but damn i wish it didnt take so long.

Now if only people knew who Peter Thiel was

If anyone ever did this with my likeness after death, even with good intentions, i would haunt the fuck out of them.

marketing hype is pushing anything with AI in the name, but it will all settle out eventually

Agreed. “use it or be left behind” itself sounds like a phrase straight out of a marketing pitch from every single “AI-centric” company that pushes their “revolutionary” product. It’s a phrase that i hear daily from c-suite executives that know very little of what they’re talking about. AI (specifically generative) has its usecases, but it’s nowhere near where the marketing says it is. And when it finally does get there, i think people are going to be surprised when they don’t find themselves in the utopia that they’ve been promised.

If fake experts on the internet get their jobs taken by the ai, it would be tragic indeed.

These two groups are not mutually exclusive

And to what end? Just to have a misinformed populace over literally every subject!

This is a feature; not a bug. We’re entering a new dark age, and generative AI is the tool that will usher it in. The only “problem” generative AI is efficiently solving is a populace with too much access to direct and accurate information. We’re watching as perfectly functional tools and services are being rapidly replaced by a something with inherent issues with reliability, ethics and accountability.

It’s honestly been a while since I’ve logged on, because my friends don’t play anymore. But some of the changes (which may be different than when I played last) that seemed like a departure in my eyes were:

• Faster burn speed – this, in my eyes, was the turning point
• Necromancer solo trait (though I’ve heard that’s been reworked since I last played)
• Adding silencers to tons of guns (on one hand I like this, but on the other hand part of Hunt Showdown was always balancing clear speed with loudness, at least in lower ranked lobbies). I understand that they have subsonic ammo now, which I imagine balances it out.
• Multiple ways to restore health chunks – it used to be that you could only restore them by killing the boss, which made it easier to make mid-match decisions on whether to push people or not
• Fast Fingers trait, while cool in its own right, homogenizes guns like the Martini Henry, Springfield, and Sparks. It used to be that when someone missed me with a sparks, I knew I had 4 seconds to push.
• Surefoot trait allows you to sprint while healing and crouchwalk faster, thus speeding up gameplay and reducing the punishment of poor positioning
• Firebeetles allow people to not only scout from a higher position, but also force enemies to go loud with guns or have one of their healthchunks torched
• Levering was made faster and more accurate for some reason

Also Bounty Clash mode, while fun, seemed like an odd decision. It sped up the gameplay quite a bit and shook up the meta in ways that made it feel like an afterthought or an experiment. Though I didn’t give it too much of a chance.

All of that being said, I still had a ton of fun with the game the last time I played it. I know others have a propensity to shit on all of the decisions that the devs make, and that’s dumb. I’m glad it’s still around and people still play it, but it’s becoming less of my cup of tea. I also put like 1200 hours into it, so maybe I’m just a little burned out.

Yeah, Hunt Showdown was peak multiplayer for my friends and I about 2 years ago, but it’s continually gone in a direction that has erased its identity. It used to be about map knowledge and patiently waiting for opportunities to punish opponent’s mistakes. Now they’re trying to make everything more fast paced. On one hand, I get it, because it was never going to break out of its core audience of veteran players. On the other hand, that core audience was what was keeping the game alive.

Manufacturing use-cases to justify spyware.