Promethiel

They’re profiling people carrying pixel devices, per the article.

I just want to say thank you for the thorough and deeply sourced commentary.

Your grasp on the military history involved, the nuanced literal meaning of the requirements to possess the requisite strategic position to fit a literal definition of a navy, and your balanced point of view on the whole swarms topic (I too agree that a human piloted swarm that is effectively controlled is terrifying, and thankfully not yet quite on display for all that the swarm behavior itself is a well established norm in warfare), and really the whole thing was a joy to read and clear to grasp once the time was devoted to digest your comments throughout the thread.

Thank you for helping make the fediverse a worthwhile place to enjoy even just lurking.

You’re only thinking of the manipulators and those who relish enjoy control over others.

You imply that the time could have been better spent in service of art or the community.

I ask you then, have you thought of the clerks? The assistants? Art? What of the writers?

Language can be used to control or manipulate yes. But before those purposes came, came the need for it to first exist, as a tool to forge connection.

To describe the sunset, give voice to the grief, and exclaim the joyous cry.

You’d think that, but that’s part of the point and magic, and it does not necessarily add up to that point of “leave us both more stressed than ever”.

It still adds up to increasing connection, not decreasing it. The caveat is that the whole leaving room for the other person too is vital, it can’t be overwhelmingly one sided, good or ill.

The human condition includes depressive shit too, and no one is unique in capacity for suffering, only details. That’s still something to bond over.

That’s the true danger of the tools, imo. They aren’t the digital All Seers their makers want to market them as, but they also aren’t the utterly useless slop machines the consensus on the Fediverse appears to vehemently be.

Of course they’re somewhere in-between. Spicy auto complete sounds like a put down but there is spice. I prefer to think of LLMs as word calculators, and I do mean that I have found them analogous in the sense that if you approach them with a similar plan of action as you would an actual calculator, you’ll get similar results.

Difference is of course that math is not fuzzy and open to nuance, and 1+1 will always equal 2.

But language isn’t math, and it’s trickier to get a sense for what the “equations” that will yield results are, so it’s easy to disparage the technology as a concept given (as you rightly point out) the boiling of the planet.

Work has been insisting we tool with an LLM and they’re checking but thankfully my role doesn’t require relying on any facts the machine spits out.

Which is another part of why the technology is so reviled/misunderstood; the part of the LLM that determines the next word isn’t and can’t judge the veracity of it’s output. Any landing on factual info is either a coincidence or the fact that you as the user knew to “coach” things in such a way as to arrive as the most likely output which the user already knew is correct.

Because of the uncertainty, it is simply unwise to take any LLM’s output as factual, as any fact checking capacity isn’t innate but other operations being done on the output, if any.

Then there’s all the other reasons to hate the things like who makes them, how they’re made, how they’re wielded, etc, and I frankly can’t blame anyone for vehemently hating LLM’s as a concept.

But it’s disingenous to think the tech is wholly incapable of anything of merit to anyone and only idiots out there are using it (even if that may still be often the case).

Or put another way: A sailor hidden within the ship’s hold will still drown and die alongside the ones that don’t resist the siren call above and pilot straight for the rocks.

Cool stuff, deployed in maximally foolish ways. I think I rambled a bit there, but hopefully a bit of my point made it across.

“Does it matter I was trying to be nice…” Yes.

The endless march of causality would and will be there with or without out your act, and the energy equilibrium doesn’t care because it can’t, but you can.

The march of all electrons to their lowest energy orbitals isn’t your dance, and you merely pretend at comprehension of time scales not meant for you.

Choose to ameliorate your own suffering, because it matters just as little to the Universe. Take your own medicine and take it without the comforting hypocrisy.

Fuck was your plan to stop the genocide in Palestine asshole, go kill Net with the brassy swinging of your massive balls? Go fuck yourself, you ain’t helping anyone, Palestinian or otherwise.

So you feel whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men? Or do you agree that that is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender?

They’re agreeing with you it seems to me, and sharing their anecdotes that despite that reality which they agree with, let me re-emphasize that, despite that reality (that using one gender’s struggles to whatabout another’s is considered both ineffective and borders on conflict-seeking, inherently), that in their experience, they have seen the same the same whatabout tactics used to dismantle discussion when a “male centric” issue is the discussion catalyst, as when it’s a “female centric” issue originating the discourse.

I can’t speak for that other commenter to your follow up question though, so I’ll answer it for myself: I do not feel that whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men, no.

As a matter of fact, I feel that they’re employed more often to stiffle discussions on “woman centric” concerns precisely because of how little Men’s issues are discussed, and the reason for both is the same. That this is a side effect of the patriarchal systems in place doesn’t absolve either side from the requirement to be genuine if genuine discourse is sought, though.

I have seen what the commenter is mentioning and right here on Lemmy to boot. Because whether male or female, a whatabout is an easy rhetorical blanket to reach for, and many do.

I believe that both genders (including and specially men, who must own up to the fact that collectively we’re the gender with the greater frequency of offense against other genders if we’re ever going to get to addressing why it’s the same systemic patriarchal roots binding women’s rights that choke out the existence of men’s rights issues) have to be willing to communicate.

Women in aggregate are crying to be heard, but “TooManyMen” aren’t listening that they’re (women) speaking for them both too, and I feel those men who are able to hear some of that message need to help out in stopping the whataboutism wall in their brothers before they get going…

The same way that I believe there’s women who need to do the same for many of their sisters in the public square.

Divided is how we’ve gotten to this, unapologetically more viscerally dangerous for womanhood world that pretty much always has been, but I feel that it is united that we’ll reach any dreams of equity or widespread understanding between the genders, if we ever will.

In short, I agree “that that [whataboutism tainting discourse] is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender”, but the mere axiomatic observation falls short of the next step:

Both sides need to acknowledge and give each other the room to voice out their feelings, views, ideas, etc, genuinely (trolls and agitators need not be entertained) while still keeping an eye for the possibility that unity lies not in knowing the correct answer but in the shared questioning.

Fellas let’s do (and encourage our brothers to) better whether we think it’s fair or not, and ladies, understand (and share with the sisters who it’s safe to) that a hypocrite and someone whose barriers are breaking will appear briefly as the same before change is undergone.

Same, but (at least in my case) you can’t ever listen to that bastard brain and do more than a small amount. The margin is thin and the prize of folly is being up at 3AM, yawning sleepily, but awake.

Those amounts aren’t USD yeah, probably habit when writing down money. The 170k and 360k figures are the WoW virtual currency aka “gold”.

There is a floor to WoW token’s gold value from what I recall (it’s been years since I interacted with Blizzard and WoW) but no ceiling.

Dunno how hard it curbed bots/unsanctioned gold sellers/fascist scum grassroots campaigns (no, really, look into Stephen Bannon and WoW gold it’s so fucking stupid) but!

Blizzard absolutely realized and then moved to take all the money that was being left on the table from 3rd party virtual currency sales, and they apply every measure and analytical tool to maximize that profit because of course.

This mount’s release is literally them inflating the price of the virtual currency ahead of real life earnings calls, because it absolutely will sell and give them the revenue infusion that the WoW token’s rise in value is meant to provide for as long as they want until it’s time to pump the numbers again with another mount/high sought store item.

A very similar variant in form and function to this mount was once available in-game and trade able with a rarity tuned that it ended up being sold for the WoW Token equivalent of ~$500 at the prices at the time, as there was no store version or similar option elsewhere.

It’s no accident that when the price of the WoW Token is at its lowest, here comes a slightly updated and dolled up version of that same highly sought mount version.

WoW is where real economics, car ownership culture, hoarding, and dopamine treadmills collide and Blizzard doesn’t just know this but have it charted on 5 year plans.

Trivial, smart, and likely amongst the first operational considerations when “real” political advocacy organizations do it.

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they had a BYOD policy and the “PAC” exists mainly in three forms: A hastily made app, Leon’s drug fueled rants, and the media’s overestimation.

Not all.

Carriers tend to have internal hangar spaces, repair/loadout spaces, machining capability, assisted takeoff/landing systems on the flight deck, etc.

To “carry” the aircraft and expect them to perform their roles, the carrier has to be a mobile light airfield and not just a deck to land and take off from.

Edit: Not to say they can’t sail or don’t with any of them on the flight deck of course, but that’s maintaining a certain level of readiness that has some posturing inherent. I guess that’s true for all military readiness doctrines.

While your point that sometimes people just have AI image associated traits is very salient, I worry you might not be considering the lengths these things will be used and why online discourse (in my worried opinion) is utterly fucked: The past ain’t safe either.

For now we still have archive.org but without a third party/external source validating that old content…you can’t be sure it’s actually old content.

It’s trivial to get LLMs to get image gen prompts done to “spice up those old news posts” at best (without remembering to tag the article edited/updated or bypassing that flag entirely)…and utterly fuck the very foundation of shared and accepted past reality not just presently but to anyone using the internet itself to look through the lens of the past at worst.

For someone who grouses about humanity, you’re scorning a ton of them. The only thing I’m angry is I wasted my time trying to get through. Others have explained causality and how absurd it is to expect your mind read. Thank you for wasting the kindness of my explanation of a turn of phrase for someone who amidst their boundaries stated they’re neurodivergent. I love doing that, and that is extreme sarcasm. May you be forever misunderstood.

That was a manner of speech. No one actually cares about your wisdom or level thereof as you gauge it, but you’re ignoring much objectivity in your refusal to acknowledge it was perhaps you who did the minor social error.

Software has been leveraged to do mass arbitrations against companies that insist on enforcing it, somewhat leveling the playing field in the power imbalance, at no less a cost than courts ultimately for the corps. Tricky enough they’ve found it hard to make language against them too.

So in a sense, it is de-enshitification but it is more likely borne from Steam throwing in the towel against a losing proposition (preventing costly mass-arbitration) than doing so because they want every user to have the maximum legal recourse.

A W is a W though, imo.

Holy fuck. That is beyond the pale, and I’m sorry you had to go through that. Chills thinking how wrong that could go.

They uh, would need to remain capable of speech for that. Surely there’s official act way of stopping that.

The sword. A literal sword of Damocles, above “tHe MaLiCiOuS eNtITy”. Is that what you need to hear to feel you’ve won? The divine rights of kings and the paradox of tolerance to meet the same end, there’s a solution to your Gordian Knot.

Now hit me with the defeatist game theory take against the groups that already would take everything.

You utterly missed my point, as that is not what I did.