- Archangel1313@lemmy.caEnglish6 days
We’re seriously fuckin’ doomed, as a species. All the morons are outsourcing their decision making to people who’ve learned to game the system exclusively for profit.
- NoLemurs@lemmy.worldEnglish6 days
Honestly, this is nothing new.
Listening to ChatGPT is a solid improvement over listening to Tucker Carlson.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not good! I don’t exactly trust the Sam Altmans of the world. But this is the same circus, different clowns.
6 daysIt really is nightmarish. I don’t know how else to say it. Something’s gotta give, but I’m afraid it’s not going to.
- Pratai@piefed.caEnglish6 days
I’ve always felt lucky to have been born Gen X. The music, the movies, the sports… all the legendary moments and all the huge breakthroughs to have been able to experience.
But now, sadly- there is another bonus, I’ll never live long enough to see end-result of AI erasing human culture. It’s enough to see it so quickly and thoroughly hobble the younger generation’s ability to think for themselves… we also have to see people dumb enough to enable it to continue.
I may not be glad when my times comes… but I think I’ll be pretty relieved.
- 4 days
On the last election in my country, I’ve visited tents set by 10 different political parties that are entering the election just to see how would they try to convince me, if I went to them as an uncertain voter that’s warm to their party. It was a genuine eye-opener regarding what these parties do to influence uncertain voters which especially matters in my country because on polls, people that are uncertain make up %12-16, which will tip elections exactly when it matters.
3 parties instantly tried to recruit me as a party member within the first minute, 5 parties we actually had a discussion that 2 of which had a roadmap they could present right there, 2 parties treated it as a gift merch with their names on to boost their visibility operation, on one party the dude there had no idea what their ideology is and just said “trust me man this dude is solid. Vote him”, one party just badmouthed an opposing party in the whole discussion and didn’t mention a single thing they would improve.
No amount of AI could give that amount of representation I got right there.
- jaamesbaxterr@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
That’s so smart. You don’t have to do any thinking. Pretty soon all thought will be eliminated and AI can tell us how to do everything from how to tie our shoes to how to structure our society. That way we just do what we’re told and can be ruled by a handful of billionaires. Smart. /S
- TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
most people don’t enjoy thinking. they also don’t enjoy running marathons.
because both things are painful. they are also time consuming.
they only becoming enjoyable or worthwhile when you have a sufficient level of practice. for someone who is a couch potato, running a marathon is impossible without months or years of hard work, and they also likely think marathon running is stupid and pointless and there is likely something ‘wrong’ with people who run marathons.
thinking and using your mental faculties are no different than your physical ones.
- 5 days
As a smart person who hates running I’m really struggling with this one
- TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
if you aren’t taking care of your health via exercise, you’re not that smart, are you?
your mind can only function as well as your body can. a good diet and exercise increases your mental capacities.
- 4 days
One section per day, two sets.
Lower Body Banded front squats 50lb x20 Deadlifts 120lb x20 Lunges x20 Slow Glute Bridges x20
Core/Butt Donkey kicks banded x20 (40/50lb) Clamshells x20 Bicycle Crunches x20 Leg Lift Plank 15sec ea side
Upper Body Push-ups x12 Ring Rows x20 Dip x12 or OH Extension 50lbx10 Bicep curls x12 me 70lb E 50lb bands
- joella@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish6 days
At least they’re not asking grok.
ugh. but they probably are, aren’t they?
- BlindPenguin@piefed.socialEnglish6 days
They are also asking AI to do their grocery list. As i had the pleasure of learning just recently on reddit, when this was posted there.
- TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
how does that even work?
like isn’t giving it the inputs of your groceries the same thing as making the list yourself?
or is more like they say ‘i want to cook tandoori chicken this week’ and it just pulls from a generic recipe the ingredients list?
- BlindPenguin@piefed.socialEnglish5 days
I have no idea. I got downvoted and some dude kept accusing me of “trying to win a discussion” and tell me that he “doesn’t understand my garbage arguments”.
- Prox@lemmy.worldEnglish6 days
Ballot language is crafted to be intentionally misleading and political ads are nothing but hyperbole bullshit.
- magnue@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
I’ll play devil’s advocate here and say that for people who use AI to make this decision, it’s going to make them decide better.
- lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
If you are the type of person who has to ask an AI this question, you probably aren’t capable of making a good decision on your own. In that sense, I agree with you.
That being said, LLMs are being manipulated by billionaires to protect the system that keeps them rich and powerful. They will give bad advice by design.
- corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish6 days
I cannot imagine someone not being VERY sure how to vote in this next American election.
- WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.todayEnglish6 days
Trump isn’t on the ballot, and they won’t pay enough attention to their Congress critters to know whether they should keep them. People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be
permittedpushed (word change due to an admittedly poor choice of word, but if you read the entirely of what I’ve written then it’s obvious what problem I’m trying to address) to vote, IMHO, because for them it’s purely a popularity of the moment contest rather than the choice of who will actually work towards improving their constituents’ lives - an utterly absurd basis for determining the future of us all.People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted to vote, IMHO
Ironically, you’d have to not be paying a certain minimal amount of attention to checks notes middle school US history to not understand how catastrophic this is in practice. Incidentally, that SPLC quiz isn’t even nearly the extent of the questions.
I would bar you from voting for this statement alone on the merits of “paying attention”.
- WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.todayEnglish6 days
Yeah, I’ve heard that before, but it’s a single example - it’s not an invalid point, but neither is mine. I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven’t for fear of repeating that issue.
Too many people just aren’t interested in what those running their lives are up to, and yet they’re routinely told to go vote if they want to be considered good citizens. So it’s become a circus every election cycle. I think those people shouldn’t be pushed to vote if they’re not interested in understanding what’s going on in their capitals, plain and simple. They’ll learn the hard way to have an interest.
but it’s a single example
No, it isn’t. In fact, the South wasn’t even the first in the US to do this for the express purpose of disenfranchising a minority – more evidence that you aren’t paying sufficient attention to the policy you want implemented. Some decades earlier, Connecticut implemented literacy tests to specifically (and successfully) disenfranchise Irish immigrants.
Even if you ignore that:
- Jim Crow-era literacy tests happened over a period of 75 years. That’s not “one example”; that’s a bunch of states over the course of nearly a century disenfranchising millions.
- It’s so blatantly obvious once you examine that “one example”™ why this system fundamentally cannot work and will be abused. If you can’t see that, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to turn you away from the polling station, because you’re clearly unequipped to vote.
- WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.todayEnglish6 days
Okay, so “not permitted” may not have been the best choice of words. "Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I’m after. You know what I’m saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I’m trying to address.
You haven’t provided a single rebuttal against the overall concept that those who aren’t following along shouldn’t be peer-pressured into voting for something they know little to nothing about. Yet, we do it because the spin-doctors realized those people are so easy to manipulate into voting against their interests, and it’s become a part of the American political process ever since.
"Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I’m after. You know what I’m saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I’m trying to address.
No, I actually don’t know what you’re saying. Because at first, you said “not permitted”, then in your second comment, you retained that position by saying: “I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven’t for fear of repeating that issue.” You’re still, in that second (“previous”) comment, going on about how we can use tests of people’s political understanding to bar them from voting if we’re just clever about it.
Now you’re just claiming it “may have not been the best choice of words”, abandoning the position you took in those two comments and then lambasting me for, like, taking you at your word that what you said is what you meant.
That’s not what “not the best choice of words” means; going from “People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted to vote, IMHO” to “not pushed” and then crying “pedantry” is being comically dishonest to save face. You completely changed positions mid-argument and then got offended that I addressed your first position before you changed it. I’m actually kind of stunned at how brazen this is.
- WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.todayEnglish6 days
Oh, spare me the sanctimoniousness. One poorly chosen word should not have thrown you off what I was after when considering the entirely of what I said. You are blatantly unserious, and just looking to play high & mighty while you still haven’t addressed the central problem I’ve described multiple times.
I’m done with you. Good night.
- 6 days
In an ideal world where it still exists it would just give them approved links to the candidates policies and voting history but we all know that’s not what’s happening.
- mctoasterson@reddthat.comEnglish6 days
I actually don’t hate this concept as long as you verify (don’t blindly trust) all the info it gives you.
The reason I say this?
Many local races, especially in “purple” areas can be super ambiguous. Candidates will circulate mailers and ads painting themselves as “pro economy, pro schools, and pro puppy” because they are trying to be vanilla AF and appeal to everyone. Their websites often list a few generic issues and that’s it.
AI might actually be useful to summarize major issues, actions, and voting record of the incumbent while collating information about a challenger candidate from other sources.
Local TV tends to be dogshit at their coverage of candidates actual plans and positions but you could also try that, if all else fails. Or maybe find a YouTube video of a debate (if there is one for the office in question) and have the AI give you a bullet point summary.
Everyone thinks they’ve verified what they were told, I’ve even seen people paste text from whatever website saying it supports their point when really it just has similar keywords. Your brain is very use it or lose it, and when you export research and thinking to AI your ability to do either drops.
- WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.todayEnglish6 days
You’re assuming the AI is impartial. After seeing what Musk did to Grok, you should be thoroughly disabused of that notion.
Neither are the local ones, unless they’re also open weights. But even then, there’s a lot more right wing content with reach out there then left wing making the dataset biased from the get go.
or, you know, manipulate the results so that the pro-ai/ceo candidate is shown to be more appealing no matter what the actual situation of the conversation or facts are.
“oh no, sorry I was hallucinating”
- WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.todayEnglish6 days
Not with the monied interests in charge of its operation. They want people to depend upon the big AIs for answers to everything so they can subtly guide the populace’s “thinking” and control them like the sheep most of them are.
