I exist or something probably

  • 0 Posts
  • 168 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2023

help-circle
  • and now neural networks are suddenly the preposterous advance? Nonsense.

    voice generators and generative ai are built with the intent of replacing artists, your incredibly reductive “history lesson” funnily illustrates only situations distinct from the current situation and you gloss over making any specific claims about the technology, just broad vagary about the trajectories of technological advancement. I dont think you are equipped to discuss this topic honestly.

    luddites are corporate propaganda

    ??? actually just a plainly absurd statement. this isnt even worth responding to it’s so absurdly incorrect.

    Yes yes ubi, but “technological labor amplification” in this case is driving human artists out of the market. make specific claims, quit hiding behind vague generalizations about automation. it’s a waste of everyone’s time and terminates your train of thought before you get to something relevant.

    We can discuss further if you make an effort to understand this topic, but so far you are just speaking largely in cliches that arent worth responding to and arent worth your time writing.


  • Do you genuinely actually believe automation like llm or voice gen are being developed to free you from work? Nonsense. It’s meant to drive the relative value of your labor into the ground so that everyone can be paid less. you see it literally here, a career set you are simply saying shouldnt exist because a corporation can do it without a human getting economic benefit. You should read about the history of the luddites.

    The only blind ones here are those who uncritically accept corporate propaganda about technology and walk stupified towards the facade of a sci fi utopia. if you are going to claim that rejection of losing human artists as the barely viable profession it is is blind, at least put the effort in. Dont walk in and go “just like carriages lol” and try considering the issue for longer.



  • Animal husbandry is the general term and longstanding one for the craft and profession of rearing, training, and yes breeding, non-human animals. this whole argument could have been resolved in 2 seconds with a web search.

    also, meekly accepting technology and automation as some impassive unguided thing outside of control or ethics is nonsense. that is why you are being told you are repeating corporate propoganda – you are.






  • the unit is just a report of orientation, not magnitude. if you have a digital counter you are limited by the precision of the digital counter, not the units chosen. an analog measurement however is limited instead by other uncertanties. precision has, genuinely, no direct relationship to units. precision is a statistical concept, not a dimensional one.


  • an arms race for what? more efficient slop? most of their value comes from the expected exclusivity - that say openai is the only one who can run something like o1. deepseek has made that collapse. i doubt they will stop doing stuff, but i dont think you understand the nature of the situation here.

    also lol, “performs well in synthetic tests it was optimized to score well in” yes that literally describes every llm. Make no mistake: none of this has a real use case. not deepseek’s model, not openai’s, not apples, etc. this is all nonsense, literally. the stock market lost 2 trillion dollars overnight because something that doesnt have a use case was one upped by something else that also doesnt have a use case. it’s very funny.


  • significance refers to a measurement certainty about a number itself, especially its precision! and is unrelated to the magnitude/scale. the number and dimension “2.5634 mm” has more significant digits than the number “5,000 mm”, though the most significant digit is 2 and 5 respectively, and least significant 4 and 5 respectively. this is true if i rewrite it as 0.0025634 m and 5 m. it does work for doing what you say in this case because a date is equivalent to a single number, but is not correct in other situations. that’s why i said it does work here.

    largest to smallest increment is completely adequate, and describes the actual goal here well. most things are ambiguous if you try hard enough.