XD

Sure, but that true AI won’t just involve an LLM, it will be a complex of multi-modal models with specialization and hierarchy–thats basically what big AIs like GPT-5 are doing.

Lol the point about “don’t dehumanize” has nothing to do about them or feeling bad for them. They can fuck right off. It’s about us not pretending these aren’t human monsters, as if being human makes us inherently good, as if our humanity somehow makes us inherently above doing monstrous things. No, to be human is to have the capacity for doing great good and for doing the monstrously terrible.

Nazis aren’t monsters because they’re inhuman, they’re monsters because of it. Other species on the planet might overhunt, displace, or cause depopulation through inadvertent ecological change, but only humanity commits genocide.

This is closer to what I mean by strategy and decisions: https://matthewdwhite.medium.com/i-think-therefore-i-am-no-llms-cannot-reason-a89e9b00754f

LLMs can be helpful for informing strategy, and simulating strings of words that may can be perceived as a strategic choice, but it doesn’t have it’s own goal-oriented vision.

Buddam tsssss! I too enjoy making fun of big business CEOs as mindless trend-followers. But even “following a trend” is a strategy attributable to a mind with reasoning ability that makes a choice. Now the quality of that reasoning or the effectiveness of that choice is another matter.

As tempting as it is, dehumanizing people we find horrible also risks blinding us to our own capacity for such horror as humans.

No, it’s not paradoxical. You are conflating time points.

I won’t debate the “value” of CEOs, but in this system, their value is subject to market conditions like any other. Human computers were valued much more before electrical computers were created. Aluminum was worth more than gold before a fast and cheap extraction process was invented.

You could not replace a CEO with a Palm pilot 10 years ago.

They… don’t make strategic decisions… That’s part of why we hate them no? And we lambast AI proponents because they pretend they do.

Sometimes quantity is a quality.

The point is fraud. They give you just enough to think they will cover you when you really need it. And by then, they’ve already extracted the optimum amount they were gonna get from you.

Garbage humans in, garbage AI out

Yes, that is the implication I was making to answer the original question. The majority of content here is in English–>the majority of English-first users are from the US–>this is why Lemmy seems so US-centric.

I was being a little obtuse because it’s like a French-filtered user asking why social media seems so France-centric even though there’s lots of social media in Africa–there are other languages that people use that you’re not necessarily seeing on your feed.

Maybe it has to do with your language settings as well? I imagine filtering out English will make your experience much less US-centric.

Here is an analysis on construction related fatalities in China.

And here is some reporting construction related fatalities in the US

Ah, I haven’t looked at others’ responses. I can see how responding to many different people gets messy.

But to answer your question, because I took the time to formulate my thoughts for you, and I responded directly to things you said in your comments. I also asked you directly “How so? What’s your alternative assertion.” Which was a good faith attempt to better understand what you meant.

Well you didn’t respond to my questions and you’re vaguely referencing our other comments instead. It’s not effective communication and leads me to think you didn’t understand my comments. You seem to be into math, so I’ll put it this way,

Be explicit, show your work: premises–>arguments–>conclusion

This has very little to do with the criticism given by the first commenter.

How do? What would your alternative assertion be on the topic?

My comment doesn’t suggest people have to run their own research study or develop their own treatise on every topic. It suggests people have make a conscious choice, preferably with reasonable judgment, about which sources to trust and to develop a lay understanding of the argument or conclusion they’re repeating. Otherwise you end up with people on the left and right reflexively saying “communism bad” or “capitalism bad” because their social media environment repeats it a lot, but they’d be hard pressed to give even a loosly representative definition of either.

The usage of “independent thought” has never been “independent of all outside influence”, it has simply meant going through the process of reasoning–thinking through a chain of logic–instead of accepting and regurgitating the conclusions of others without any of one’s own reasoning. It’s a similar lay meaning as being an independent adult. We all rely on others in some way, but an independent adult can usually accomplish activities of daily living through their own actions.

I think I fall in the same camp of agreeing with a good chunk of his points while disagreeing with others and I even have laughed at many of his jokes. And I’m totally fine with that for people I enjoy watching. However, what turned me off of Bill Maher a decade ago was his overall manner and attitude. He just started coming across as arrogant, obnoxious, smarmy, and untimately unkind, even when I agreed with him, which I did not enjoy. It was much in contrast to other satirists who may have mocked people, never felt like they were out to denigrate. Maybe his content has changed, but I haven’t noticed.

I wonder what proportion of it is also due to people fleeing 1 million + average house markets during the pandemic work from home wave. Not saying this about you, but it makes me think it’s funny how the common refrain of “Don’t like it? Just move” is often uttered by NIMBYs.