Starting off with “we’ve heard your feedback” is something I’ve never heard from an abusive parent?

David Bowie and Prince both bent and blurred gender lines while still being attractive, unique, and amazingly talented. Bowie died really close to his birthday, and both dates are close to my birthday.

When he died, I decided to check off some of my bucket list items, like performing in drag. Whenever I’ve felt self conscious, thinking about these icons really helped me be comfortable with myself and my journey.

I really miss both of them as a fan. :/ I wish I had seen them live.

My ADHD tax is currently $377 every month for Vyvanse.

Many things are designed for engagement, so what’s your point? Some people use Lemmy like Reddit and care about internet points that don’t matter. “The rising number is designed to exploit your behavioral patterns and enforce your engagement.” Instead of daily, it’s multiple times, but the point is you can paint many business models like this.

People download the app to get better at a skill. It’s designed to be effective at doing that. It’s a skill people want to learn. How is that exploitive or manipulative?

Full warning: I’ve worked in game design and F2P for like 10 years. I know there’s some personal bias, but there are much worse examples of this stuff than Duolingo or whatever. Painting good actors as bad actors is not correct.

The anecdote part at the end is irrelevant for both of us. I have the opposite experience and don’t even use this app: a bunch of my friends seem to all use it for learning languages. /shrug

Why evil? I’m not a capitalist, but it’s a language learning company being silly; they aren’t causing massive injustice.

Plank position slows things down a lot.

About to be a lot of “accidental” falls out of windows.

I believe in UBI, but the Captain Laserhawk show made me aware of how much it could get twisted in fucked up ways. “Don’t watch this show? -$100 from your stipend this month.” I used to think things like that were fear mongering, but the world is all kinds of weird today.

More AI:

Do you hear the denim sing? Singing a song of jean-clad men? It is the fabric of the people Who won’t wear slacks again!

When the stitching in your seams Echoes the rhythm of the looms There is a style about to gleam When tomorrow’s hemline blooms!

The expansion of that abbreviation feels like an idiocracy joke.

“We store the computer data on VBDs.” “What is a VBD?” “Very large disc^tm. It’s pretty advanced.” And then they just bring out an insanely large disc.

Maybe more apt for me would be, “We don’t need to teach math, because we have calculators.” Like…yeah, maybe a lot of people won’t need the vast amount of domain knowledge that exists in programming, but all this stuff originates from human knowledge. If it breaks, what do you do then?

I think someone else in the thread said good programming is about the architecture (maintainable, scalable, robust, secure). Many LLMs are legit black boxes, and it takes humans to understand what’s coming out, why, is it valid.

Even if we have a fancy calculator doing things, there still needs to be people who do math and can check. I’ve worked more with analytics than LLMs, and more times than I can count, the data was bad. You have to validate before everything else, otherwise garbage in, garbage out.

It’s sounds like a poignant quote, but it also feels superficial. Like, something a smart person would say to a crowd to make them say, “Ahh!” but also doesn’t hold water long.

If you don’t get wrestling, it’s worth checking out this video: https://youtu.be/VYvMOf3hsGA?si=DeKR6-1hCdb0HaNW

I generally agree. It’ll be interesting what happens with models, the datasets behind them (particularly copyright claims), and more localized AI models. There have been tasks where AI greatly helped and sped me up, particularly around quick python scripts to solve a rote problem, along with early / rough documentation.

However, using this output as justification to shed head count is questionable for me because of the further business impacts (succession planning, tribal knowledge, human discussion around creative efforts).

If someone is laying people off specifically to gap fill with AI, they are missing the forest for the trees. Morale impacts whether people want to work somewhere, and I’ve been fortunate enough to enjoy the company of 95% of the people I’ve worked alongside. If our company shed major head count in favor of AI, I would probably have one foot in and one foot out.

This has been my general worry: the tech is not good enough, but it looks convincing to people with no time. People don’t understand you need at least an expert to process the output, and likely a pretty smart person for the inputs. It’s “trust but verify”, like working with a really smart parrot.

Yeah, this phrase makes way more sense within the context of a game or game theory. For me, it goes back to fighting games or sports. People play to win in those settings. The rules are heavily defined, and the players must abide. These other examples are people misusing the phrase.

It’s not as much. GaaS is the predominant model, and you make more on the LiveOps side than the launch recoup period.

Source: Developer of 10 years, x-Director at 200 person company.

Let’s say “low performing” means you scored 20% or lower on the test. We’d write that as “25% scored 20% or lower.” But you could move the measure of “low” to whatever.

It’s not “the bottom 25% were in the bottom 25%.” It’s “25% met the criteria for low.” Those are different things.

…unless this is a /s that I’m too tired or socially inept to process. i’m trying to be helpful.

You look on at the festive dish that’s seemingly grown consciousness. Others impatiently wait behind you, expecting you to dig in.

There was a similar study reported the other day about using FMRI imagining and AI to recreate the “thought content” of someone’s brain. It required training for the AI in the person’s brain and some other training. It does seem these techniques can work with some specified models, but yeah, it doesn’t seem like hooking someone’s brain up to this would create a movie of their mind or something.

I think the more dangerous part is “This is step 0,” which this tech would have seemed impossible 10 years ago. Very strange times.

https://youtu.be/FSvNhxKJJyU?si=xzq7QvVaIcxPE-AD#t=55s