This is such a stupid take, the author is either a lemming or doesn't understand how resources and commodities work

I had an MSI laptop for over ten years and it ran great

But when I went shopping for a replacement I couldn't ignore the disparity in Amazon reviews between MSI laptops and Razer blades

Have they gone downhill?

On the other hand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Thanks, this was educational

Do you think there's currently a better platform than Lemmy for reddit-shaped content ?

That's impressive for someone who seems clueless

I would encourage you to give foundational large models a chance

I think you'll find that (barring intentionally subversive inputs) the largest and most powerful models basically don't hallucinate

O1 in particular is better than humans in my experience

I would argue that you've clearly formed your opinion without spending significant time giving foundational LLMs a chance

This isn't just a bit of a liberal echo chamber

Lemmings have the belief that talking about neutral or grey areas incite the opposition and they're willing to go on loud, masturbatory tirades and attack others to control the narrative and shut down conversation

Your examples are great ones.

My opinion is that there's an ultra loud monitority of individuals here who are super focused on a small selection of the left wing agenda (identity politics is a big one, Israel is another, AI is a third).

I think the solution is to appeal to a broader audience and grow the platform but it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy at the moment

I would argue that all of the cases you presented fail at a comparable rate compared to foundational LLMs

This is a good and fair point

But I would counter that there are a number of co-mingling biases and suboptimal, systematic, societal issues at play which led to this, and I would argue that no one knew there were 60 million like minded votes until election day

I think your argument puts the cart before the horse. These people were prepared to vote for Trump long, long before, and it wasn't because they all loudly talked about it together

Fox News for example is infinitely more at blame than your racist uncle, and my original point was that giving your racist uncle even an ounce of your attention is a kind of misplaced hate

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most_of_what_you_read_on_the_internet_is_written/?rdt=43283

A lot of metal bands do instrumental releases

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR1qON1IN1zBN4eo7DFL4IYRwZeuKTvWP&si=xY2lo5ha-8070b2P

This is a legit hacker news take but Lemmy circle jerk will have none of it

I actually do not think that's a fair assumption. In my experience conservative voters are significantly less likely to talk about their beliefs and choices

In fact I would argue that across the political spectrum, there's a loud minority

See point 1

Are you saying that humans don't parrot what seems like what they heard before?

My point is that AI technology is just a tool. You could replace the anti-AI rhetoric with anti-big-company rhetoric without mentioning AI at all and it makes more sense and is more true.

There is nothing wrong with big companies using tools in itself, even if using tools costs money. That is what makes the rhetoric luddite.

Why is this different than talking to a human

AI is a collection of techniques to build solutions to problems without explicitly defining the problem and shape of solution

There's a massive, open, collaborative world of open source AI, not just training code but datasets and trained model weights

The fact that large, evil companies are pouring money into the technology (and have the best models) should manifest as 1 anti-capitalism and 2 evidence that the technology is legit

The rhetoric on Lemmy, on the other hand, comes across as uninformed and Luddite

The consistent anti-ai rhetoric on Lemmy is weird

Why not