Most of the cheap IOT crap is still insecure, requires a signin and a cloud connection to spy on you and steal your data. Of course there are options to secure the devices (always have been) but for the nontechnical person this is out of reach, not only because doing that requires knowledge but also bc most people don’t even know about these issues or care about their privacy.

Some German bakeries have excessively stupid names for their products too, though. I always refuse to say the name but point to the product in question. The usual answer is “Oh, you want one of the [silly-gibberish-name-of-an-overpriced-thing-that-tastes-like-sawdust-anyways]” - I nod, and that’s a successful transaction done.

Lass ma lieber bis nach der Bundestagswahl warten

/s

Damn, you’re right. I fell for it this time.

The mechanism is almost elegant in how it works against you

Yeah, this or plain fraud. Bending the rules to be included early in index funds like the spaceX case or not enforcing the rules in case of Tesla/S&P500 is what allows fraud to happen. Circular investments pumping up the numbers too. But let’s just pretend everything is fine until it’s too late

Would be an OK salary for most of Europe. Most countries here have relatively solid health care insurance, affordable education and a pension fund included, so that some of the biggest costs of living in the US don’t even make a dent in the salary.

YouTube paid by the time people actually watched the videos in the past (as far as I know this changed recently) so there was a real incentive for Youtubers to add a lot of worthless filler to the videos

Quite ironic considering how hard Microslop is pushing AI. Now the self inflicted ram shortage kills their bloated bullshit features.

yw, also subscribing to the people providing good content should help too. Most of my feed is from subscriptions, with related content inbetween

I’m not encouraging you to use YouTube, but if you do, marking stuff you aren’t interested in and removing every slop video from your watch history can help a lot. The YouTube algorithm very rarely recommends slop to me

The situation is a bit different in Germany though, because there isn’t just one “conservative” party. It won’t help the CDU (Chancellor Merz’s party) to cozy up to fascist positions because people then will just vote for the original fascists instead (Afd Party) and they will lose their power. There are some studies proving that this strategy does not give them more votes. So this will fail - unless they are willing to form a coalition with the Afd which will alienate them from the non-fascist portion of their voters (which do exist - they are a large faction among traditional CDU voters)

Possible, but they would more likely see more false positives depending on how suspicious they are… like when people suspected images to be photoshopped in the past.

I have no clue about the looksmaxxing scene, so forgive me for asking: Which one is supposed to be before and which one is after?

Edit: Goddamit, it’s a simple question and I honestly don’t see it. Just answer me instead of downvoting if you know better than me. The left one looks more masculine somehow and my first instinct was that this has to be the “after” photo, but usually these comparisons go from left to right. I’m not going to google the person because I have a feeling this isn’t worth my attention.

You wrote “AI has access to a wealth of our personal information from past conversations” - From a technical standpoint, AI has a “context” per session and it can have “memories” which can be added if the system you are using provides such a thing. However: Unless you are reusing the same session over several days, in general AI can’t remember your past conversations. And it’s not advisable to use the same session for an extended period of time: The context becomes diluted and the model is more prone to hallucinate, forget key points or start to misbehave in subtle ways.

On the content of your post… I’d wish you would be clearer and more precise in getting your point across. It was a hard read for me tbh. Also I think that “bypassing the brainstorming process” with AI is simply impossible, because a large language model does not have ideas. It’s output is the statistical mean of its training data, which in essence means that its output is by design mediocre. It’s the statistical middle ground of the options the training data contains. Human ideas on the other hand, as you rightfully point out are the result of a spark of personality and individual experiences. This will never be replaced by AI. Using it as a tool for brainstorming can be detrimental to the result for the same reasons. The AI might convince you that your idea is good while it is in fact just mediocre or worse.

I think you might unknowingly still be a victim of the mystification of LLMs. It’s time to see the technology at face value and to get to know its very real limitations of practical usability. The part about transhumanism… idk. Only people who see these things as more than just sophisticated word generators would entertain such an idea.

Indeed. The average person seems to need instagram, whatsapp and xitter to fill their meaningless little isolated lives with distractions to feel… something. However on a more positive note, once people get suspicious about AI slop they tend to notice the slop patterns more easily, which is a good development. It’s something that can’t be unseen.

Oh wow, not the onion.

Low effort guy in the middle should step up his game

Is it April 1st again already? That sounds like BS when applied to text. For code, this doesn’t work at all. A linter will kill any statistical shenanigans they would introduce. And if they have a mechanism whatsoever to see the watermark, then others will see it too, which will make it easy to remove it.

EDIT there is a paper about how this is supposed to work. They acknowledge that an attack on the algorithm can only be prevented when the algorithm is not disclosed to the public. They also explain how it is basically useless to detect AI generated code. And on top of it all, one would have to force the same non-public watermarking algorithm on every LLM out there to be effective. Which seems unlikely to happen. While it might be a fancy way for an owner of an LLM to detect whether their product was used, it is totally useless as a measure of detecting AI generated texts in general.

AI fits very well into the “Workism” narrative. As LLMs generate the statistical medium of all the training data it has, the output is mediocre by design. That makes it an excellent tool for bullshit work, like creating an email summary of a meeting that no one will ever read, and countless other mindless and useless daily chores of the “knowledge worker”.

But the basic premise hasn’t moved an inch with AI. If you have a job which rewards creativity and needs you to develop new ideas, solve hard problems etc. then AI doesn’t do shit for you. AI gives mediocre answers to mediocre people. It’s not creative at all. It spits out the average of the sum of its training data points. If your job consists mostly of doing mindless chores then it is not a good job anyway. Nothing to be proud of, not a career, just a job.

The way this exercise is supposed to be done is:

• add left+middle block from the bottom row, and write the result to left block of the middle row
• add middle+right block of the bottom row and write the result to the right block of the middle row
• add left+right block of the middle row and write the result to the top row.

The idea is that the two supporting blocks below have the same “weight” as the block directly above.

I don’t know if this page was AI generated, but its clearly wrong.