TwilightVulpine

Not really. People may talk shit about comments, but if it was just a matter of getting just articles, you might as well stick to the news sites. Even as far as pure news aggregation goes there are better options than relying on whatever a handful people decide to share here.

There's value in public commentary too. It may not be as polished as these articles but it provides a variety of perspectives, questions and criticism that might be pertinent, and for as lacking or biased as they may be, it's much easier to tell compared to sources trying to pretend impartiality.

There's a reason why we are here and not on, say, Feedly. This particular community only highlights it further, since it's entirely based on the interpersonal element. Ain't nobody looking for journalism or scientific articles on !Showerthoughts

They had a brand that was so powerful it was used as a verb, and he gave it up for the letter that is used as a generic placeholder, just because he's obssessed with it for whatever reason.

I wouldn't count on the user realizing the limitations of the technology, or the companies openly admitting to it at expense of their marketing. As far as art AI goes this is just awkward, but it worries me about LLMs, and people using it expecting it to respond with accurate, applicable information, only to come out of it with very skewed worldviews.

I so wish we had some affordable, high-density storage technology that we could record and then forget it in the attic for 20 years.

I think even that goes back around to business interests. We can't store that many physical copies in shrinking, expensive housing. Digital purchasable media is somehow just as expensive despite having tiny manufacturing and logistical costs, on top of being unreliable due to DRM.

Subscriptions so far seemed like a better value proposition but between splitting and vanishing libraries, increasing prices and the addition of ads, that's becoming more questionable. Even average people aren't so thrilled of having to subscribe to a dozen different services to watch, listen and play what they want.

These days "free speech absolutist" is used more as an excuse to defend hate speech than actual opposition of censorship. Elon was always inclined to censor whoever he finds inconvenient (company whistleblowers, plane tracker), and many of his fans are similarly inclined, say, against LGBT people, socialists, and other groups they dislike.

This result is clearly wrong, but it's a little more complicated than saying that adding inclusivity is purposedly training it wrong.

Say, if "entrepreneur" only generated images of white men, and "nurse" only generated images of white women, then that wouldn't be right either, it would just be reproducing and magnifying human biases. Yet this a sort of thing that AI does a lot, because AI is a pattern recognition tool inherently inclined to collapse data into an average, and data sets seldom have equal or proportional samples for every single thing. Human biases affect how many images we have of each group of people.

It's not even just limited to image generation AIs. Black people often bring up how facial recognition technology is much spottier to them because the training data and even the camera technology was tuned and tested mainly for white people. Usually that's not even done deliberately, but it happens because of who gets to work on it and where it gets tested.

Of course, secretly adding "diverse" to every prompt is also a poor solution. The real solution here is providing more contextual data. Unfortunately, clearly, the AI is not able to determine these things by itself.

As do most live service publishing companies. That is the whole problem. They aren't bothered by simply looking bad for not preserving them.

I don't get what part of the value proposition for the customer ought to entail that nobody else may make different choices. If an Android user wants to solely and exclusively use Google apps, they can. Likewise, if people want to install apps from other sources, why is that a problem for someone who wants to stick to Apple's app store?

This only makes sense for the company, because they benefit from absolute control.

The only reason Soul Hackers 2 wasn't like that is because it didn't sell enough to justify a re-release

It's shit compared to Java. But it's something compared to Bedrock, which only got monetized decorations DLCs.

Gotta wonder how that robot feels about humanity