• 0 Posts
  • 112 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle

  • Smoogs@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlMath
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    Until it introduces a bunch of mistakes of its own. AI as a test has failed in several industries before now. It’s been around much longer than you’d think and has been tested in the BG for a lonnng time with much fail to the result of disgust if you even bring it up. It’s nothing more than a novelty in writing that doesn’t require the need to run on tight, non rational numbers. Something of which no binary based, household (and most industry) computer is capable of.

    Look up the Ariane 5 rocket disaster. It is the summary of floating point error that can result in disaster. This is the limitation that is present in all standard computers you’d be accessing today since the 1930’s.

    (Also referred to as round off errors or truncation errors in avionics because of how common irrational numbers are in spatial navigation.)


  • Smoogs@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlMath
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    15 days ago

    Yup this is every job now. Wrangling numbers. The actual job or calculation could be done in days if less. But dealing with dirty information and playing detective which isnt even part of it is the sink hole of every job right now.



  • Or maybe people have varying degrees of how they take interest in something and semantics are just semantics according to interest.

    For example: I have three relatives who are obsessed with the things they are interested in. One is into hoses…like really into hoses. and they have a computer and a car they use but they don’t like these two things nearly as much as they like their hoses. The other, while they use hoses and computers are really into cars. And a third who is super into computers while they have a hose and a car, they just don’t find the same interest in these other two things as they do with their computer.

    None of them like each other.

    Guess why.

    Cuz like Fine. Go be a ‘fanboy’ about your one thing but people aren’t just dumb because they aren’t as obsessed as you are about your one thing. And they aren’t the problem here when you feel you’ve expressed your obsession language to their ordinary language about it. Cuz They get it. You like the thing. They just aren’t wanting to go deep like you do about it. But it gets annoying and old real fast if you’re so obsessed you’re pushing it on them. Their time and energy is worthwhile too.




  • Reality is there are jobs out here that nobody wants and industry have been trying to program and train machines to do. 2 decades of AI attempts and it’s still failed. If anything it’s created more jobs to just cleanup some of these shitty AI attempts. 2 week human jobs turn into 4 weeks where a human is cleaning up after a machine fucks it up.

    so is this the super machine future we were all told about? underwhelming.












  • Yes it is a tangent and it wasn’t appropriate to derail.

    It’s really not as kind as a person thinks they are being when no one asked them to correct their grammar. It doesn’t show respect to the topic or the person speaking. Something about not letting perfection prevent progress. And honestly it wasn’t hard to understand what the OP was saying so even going the ‘hard to understand’ excuse wouldn’t fit for a grammar troll to stretch their legs out on here.


  • I think the key word there is consent. And the other important topic is distribution.

    Would you consent to having your picture taken naked is different to someone taking a picture without you knowing or them asking for consent. If you wanted the picture of you naked and the person wanted to take a picture of you naked, both sides consented. But then how it is distributed is another matter. You can still not have the consent a person would need to distribute the picture. This is why it’s becoming illegal in more and more countries to show a naked picture to someone you took with your phone even if that person consented to have the picture taken that does not mean they consent to you to distribute it acting on behalf as their agent. In cases where this has happened the person poses or sends the picture to one person they want to have it. That isn’t agency to distribute it or/and make money off of it.

    A person taking a shit in public or changing with the door open are both examples of giving consent to be publicly seen if you’re deciding to do the act however the witnesses to it are not giving consent to have it in their space to be forced to see it. But then should one of the witnesses have a cel phone and film you shitting or changing in public, this also falls into the you-didn’t-consent to how it’s distributed.

    The whole privacy issue is it is done entirely without one person giving consent to have their information distributed. Even if you did consent to give that person some personal information, they then decide without your consent to act as your agent about your personal information in how it’s distributed.