ClamDrinker

@ClamDrinker@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What a great idea⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This isn’t a conspiracy, nor a secret, and nobody is claiming it is. It’s just psychology for the sake of profit maximization, which literally every company that likes to make a profit participates in. Why are you winding yourself up so much over something so uncontroversial?

  You should go work in retail for a year or two, because then you will know this isn’t exactly uncommon knowledge and even the people stocking the shelves know about it. Hell people that understand psychology need to shop too, so they know it too as they move through the store. If it’s a conspiracy to you, that says more about you than anybody else.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What a great idea⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You are not everyone. It doesnt have to work on everyone to be effective. And at the end if you want to reject it or not, it’s there, you can read up on it if you didnt already make up your mind. For grocery stores, it’s about large sums of money, so they do care.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What a great idea⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You really should look into it more (it’s not a secret if you look for it) because OP is right. Yes, they’re selling thousands of things BUT they’re also designing that space to make you take as long as possible to get through it. The answer for why that is, is simple. People buy more. You don’t have to have an “issue” navigating with it, because you just don’t notice if you spend 5 minutes more walking through the place. If it was so egregious to be noticed easily by people, they would stop coming and the benefit evaporates. So it’s a balance.

  It’s not even that, grocery stores bake bread and spread bread smell since it perks people up and makes them more willing to spend, play specific music that calms and soothes you so you’ll walk slower. When you walk into a grocery store, you are walking through a highly specialized environment to maximize profits.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hooded Horse ban AI-generated art in their games: "all this thing has done is made our lives more difficult"⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Honestly, asset flips or pure ai slop are often not something you would consider a ‘real game’. They are closer to a scam than anything. And they certainly wouldn’t be published by a reputable publisher. I think that’s also what OP was referring to, a game that meets some minimal level of development and involvement.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tankie⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s pretty interesting. And I totally agree with your last part. One counterpoint I would have is that local models are often more efficient though, and there’s very little checking you can do on how much your query actually costs in the cloud, while using it at home you can monitor your GPU usage and your power bill. But yeah at the end of the day using it as little as possible is a good habit.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tankie⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It does not but that wasn’t my point. It was that that not all forms of AI usage are the same. The same way someone driving around an EV that they charge with solar power isn’t the same as someone driving a 1969 oil guzzler (or something equivalent). Local usage more often than not means efficient models, low energy consumption, and little difference to other computer tasks like gaming or video editing. But when the conversation is around AI, there is always the explicit expectation that it’s the worst of the worst all the time.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tankie⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The existence of offline models highlights a nuance that some people deny even exists though, causing people to talk around one another. I wish it would be more widely acknowledged, as it would make some around AI conversations easier.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨PS5 ROM Keys Leaked: Sony’s Unpatchable Security Nightmare (2026) | The CyberSec Guru⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  There’s truth to that currently yeah. I think my points still stand as well though, and in the long run you will still be out worse even if the upfront cost is currently cheaper. It also just seems contrary to the free and open nature of Linux, but if you don’t already own something you can upgrade and are currently strapped for cash, fair enough. But that’s also not going to change if you sink 400-500 dollars into it and that’s your budget for the next 5 years.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨PS5 ROM Keys Leaked: Sony’s Unpatchable Security Nightmare (2026) | The CyberSec Guru⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Or just… don’t by consoles at all. Buy a mini PC (which you can upgrade too) or wait for the Steam Cube? Why still funnel money into a company that seems to be adamant that it owns that machine (and lets be honest, could try and use any kind of kill switch or safeguard to stop you from doing so) and will wield your money as a weapon against you. It’s like soliciting a stalker because you enjoy receiving random gifts in the mail with totally no strings attached.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Among 2025 games with over 10K reviews, Deltarune is the most highly rated⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Hate to say it, but you might be missing out on something you won’t ever be able to experience. It’s like with episodic releases of TV shows, half the fun is sitting with friends discussing and overthinking what just happened while you wait for the next episode. Being there too long after community wide revelations, you can’t experience that head space of mystery and surprise again. Deltarune handles the episodic releases very well honestly, I’d understand if it was a series of bad partial releases.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do I "sabotage" my own online content to throw a wrench in AI training machines?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Not completely true. It just needs to be data that is organic enough. Good AI generated material is fine for reinforcement since it is still material (some) humans would be fine seeing. So more like: it needs to be human approved.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do I "sabotage" my own online content to throw a wrench in AI training machines?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There’s really no good way - if you act normal they train on you, and if you act badly they train on you as an example of what to avoid.

  My recommendation: Make sure its really hard for them to guess which you are so you hopefully end up in the wrong pile. Use slang they have a hard time pinning down, talk about controversial topics, avoid posting to places easily scraped and build spaces free from bot access. Use anonimity to make you hard to index. Anything you post publicly can be scraped sadly, but you can make it near unusable for AI models.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Thank you, Thor!⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There’s always just people that mess up on the form. But they also monitor the sign rate and saw some periods of higher than normal signing in the middle of the night in the EU - indicating someone might have ran a bot to sign with invalid information. The EU only validates the signatures once the petition is closed, so they need a safe margin where even with a significant amount of invalid signatures, they still make it. Afaik 1.2 mil is about what they would expect for a normal vote of this size to be safe, and 1.4 mil is basically more than enough to compensate for any bad actors.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Thank you, Thor!⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ross explained it in his last video - there are reasons to be skeptical and unsure if it’s truly there until at least 1.4 mil signatures. And more votes is never bad. So both need more attention. If it reaches people in the EU it will also reach those in the UK.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What are your thoughts about AI?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It really depends. There’s some good uses, but it requires careful consideration and understanding of what the technology can actually provide. And if for your use case there isnt anything, it’s just not what you should use.

  Most if not all of the bigger companies that push it dont really try to use it for those purpose, but instead treat it as the next big thing that nobody quite understands, building mostly on hype. But smaller companies and open source initiatives indeed try to make the good uses more accessible and less objectionable.

  There’s plenty of cases where people do nifty things that have positive outcomes. Researchers using it for pattern recognition, scambait chatbots, creative projects that try to make use of the characteristics of AI different from human creations, etc.

  I like to keep an open mind as to what people come up with, rather than dismissing it outright when AI is involved. Although hailing it as an AI product is a red flag for me if thats all thats advertised.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨who are you?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It also very much depends on your country, food authority, and retailer. Some food authorities have stricter categories for very perishable foods where unless it has gone very bad, you can’t see it’s not suitable for consumption anymore, eg. meat and vegetable. And while the producer has an incentive to encourage waste, the retailer has the incentive to reduce it, as you typically can’t sell items to consumers that are no longer within date (Again, depending on your location). If an item is unreasonably often thrown out by the retailer, that leads to consequences in the deals being made between the retailer and the producer.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The clueless people are out there among us⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah I agree that’s a fair enough assumption 😄

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The clueless people are out there among us⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Never assumed you did :), but yes, as little assumptions is the best. But as you can already tell, it’s hard to communicate when you take no assumptions when people make explicit statements crafted to dispel assumptions, that are entirely plausible for a hypothetical real person to have.

  In fact, your original statement of “They have no doubts. Never occurred to them it might be a joke…”, is in itself a pretty big assumption. Unless, of course. I assume that statement to be a hyperbole, or even satire. But if we want to have fun talking about a shitpost we do kind of have to take an assumptive position on the meme that can’t talk back.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The clueless people are out there among us⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  People making assumptions is the issue.

  There’s assumptions involved in detecting satire from just text as well. You would just have a Reverse Poe’s law where “any extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for satire of those views without clear indicator of the author’s intent”.

  Normally when people say things we (justifiably) assume that to be what they mean, which is why satire works much better in person because intonation can make the satire explicit without changing the words or saying it out loud.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨3's grip looks the most comfy⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Surprised I had to scroll down so far to find 3, it’s just the same as 5 but with better grip around the finger tips, which avoids the pen from twisting when you hold it tightly.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm just happy you thought it was funny, dear⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You forgot the strikethrough :.|:;

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Ah shit. Here we go again.⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Still better than having to go right as you step under the water, and then having to perform a sacred rain dance to hold it in

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Thanks for clarifying. I get your point, I honestly dont doubt someone or a group with such opinions exists out there, I just dont think it represents anywhere near a critical mass.

  Sadly, when there’s big money to be made such as for blockbusters, even some human work before AI was already pretty ‘sanitized’ or ‘toned down’ in terms of human creativity, as it must be as uncontroversial and mainstream appealing as possible. So yes if AI got good enough it would definitely be used by some of those companies.

  However, I dont see any path for current AI technology to get there without at least 1 or 2 breakthrough similar to the advent of current AI technology.

  I also dont think it will replace anything beyond the works of companies with great profit incentive. We have a massive amount of communities where human creativity is central in all shapes and forms, producing works that arent appealing to everyone, but to the people it resonates with, it is so uniquely special that its irreplaceable. This kind of art thrives on it’s human creativity rather than it’s ability to make money. The human desire to produce and consume art that resonates with them is so strong it wont go anywhere as long as people have the time and ability to produce it.

  Rest assured, there is basically no talk of replacing anyone with AI in my corner of the creative industry.

  Should the day come that AI truly becomes that good it can compete with human creativity, its likely that AI will have become far more human in terms of how it creates art, and would start exhibiting the same tendencies to share human experiences and memories. Then the difference will start to fade and indeed we might go the way of the horses, but such a scenario is essentially sci-fi tight now - we may never even get close and art might have made many radical shifts before we get there. And like the camera didnt kill hand painted portraits, there will still be a place for human creativity, just less.

  But so long as the incentive is there, it might eventually happen. And so we should be ready to safeguard creativity in some manner along the way. But currently the most effective ways of doing so entail mostly to curb our capitalistic society, and not at the technology. Because doing so could in the worst case lock creatives out from the technology and start a race for the capability to keep up, and large companies would surely win out if we let them.

  They have more means of doing things and more data than smaller creators, and AI does seem to pull some of that power back to smaller creators, hence why even thought it might seem big companies are all pro AI, dont be surprised if they are totally fine taking a powerful tool away so they can take it just for themselves.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m someone who talks about AI a lot on lemmy, people might call me pro AI although I consider myself to be neither pro nor anti, but admittedly, optimistic about AI in general. I work with people in the creative industry, artists, writers, designers, you name it.

  As others have mentioned already, your question to my knowledge does not reflect most people’s view on AI neither online and even less so in real life. And I talk and participate in communities that are overwhelmingly pro AI. The “AI bros” you mention sound like caricatures to me.

  There are some who have become bitter by lies and misinformation spread about AI that are intentionally hateful as a kind of reverse gotcha, but thats about it. You have those on the anti AI side as well for different reasons.

  I dont consider AI to be anywhere close to being a threat to the industry, other than indirectly through the forces of capitalism and mismanagement. Your question indeed seems very insane to me. Most people that use and talk about AI to me seem more interested in using it to make new creative works, or enhance existing works to greater depth in the same time. Creative people are human too and have limited time, and often their time is already cut short by deadlines and their work has been systematically undervalued even before AI.

  AI as it currently stands on its own simply has no feeling of direction. Without much effort you can get very pretty, elegant, interesting, but ultimately meaningless things from it. This cannot replace anyone, because such content while intriguing doesnt capture attention for long. It also cannot do complex tasks such as discussing with stakeholders or remaining consistent across work and feedback.

  With a creative person at the wheel of the AI though, something special can happen. It can give AI the direction it needs to bring back that meaning.

  This is a perspective a lot of people miss, since they only see AI as ChatGPT or Midjourney, not realizing that these are proprietary (not open source) front ends to the technology that essentially hide all the controls and options the technology has, because these things are essentially a new craft on their own and to this day very little people are even in the progress of mastering them.

  Everyone knows about prompts, but you can do much more than that depending on the model. Some image models allow you to provide your own input image, and even additional images that control aspects of the image like depth, layout, outlines. And text models allow you to pack a ton of pre existing data that completely guide what it will output next, as well as provide control over the internal math that decides how it comes to its guess for the next word.

  Without a creative and inventive person behind the wheel, you get generic AI material we all know. And with such a person, you get material at times indistinguishable from normal material. These people are already plentiful in the creative industry, and they are not going anywhere, and new people that meet this criteria are always welcome. Art is for everyone, and especially those who are driven.

  Really the only threat to the creative industry in regards to AI is that some wish to bully and coerce those who use the technology into submission and force them to reject it, and even avoid considering it altogether like dogma. This creates a submissive group that will never learn how to operate AI models. Should AI ever become neccesary to work in the creative industry (it currently doesnt look like it) these people will be absolutely decimated by the ones that kept an open mind, and more importantly, the youth of tomorrow that always is more open to new technologies. This is a story of the ages whenever new technology comes around, as it never treats those that reject it kindly, if it sticks around.

  The loom and the Luddites, cars and horses, cameras and painters, mine workers and digging machines, human calculators and mechanical calculators, the list goes on.

  So no, being pro AI doesnt neccesarily mean you are participating in the downfall of the creative industry. Neither does being anti AI. But spreading falsehoods and stifling healthy discussion, that can kill any industry except those built on dishonesty.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon questions our energy sector⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m sure such cases exist, but where I’m from people don’t really get paid to host turbines, maybe companies at times. They dislike them because it affects the view in the area, and especially if you live very close to them the blades can cause noticeable flickering shadows. That latter point has a lot more weight to it in my eyes, but people do really care about the former as well, and it’s kind of hard to push on people when they live there and not you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon questions our energy sector⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  There is competition in battery production. Pretty much all of society would be better off with better batteries, so price gauging in an industry like that is quite hard. And if it was, it would not go unnoticed.

  The problem is simply the technology. There’s advancements like molten salt batteries, but it’s practically in it’s infancy. The moment a technology like that would become a big improvement over the norm, it would pretty much immediately cause a paradigm shift in energy production and every company would want a piece of the pie. So you’ll know it when you see it. But it might also just start off very overwhelmingly like nuclear fission and very gradually improved with the hope it can scale beyond the current best technologies for batteries.

  All we can do is wait and hope for breakthrough, I guess. Because cheap and abundant batteries could really help massively with reducing our carbon output.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon questions our energy sector⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  2160 GW is it’s rated capacity. I’m not sure how you got from there to 14.2 dollars per watt, but it completely ignores the lifetime of the power plant.

  Vogtle 3&4 are really a bad example because unit 4 only entered commercial activity this year. But fine, we can look at what it produces just recently.. About 3335000 MWh per month, or about 107 GWh per day. We can then subtract the baseline from Reactor 1 & 2 from before Reactor 3 was opened, removing about 1700000 MWh per month. Which gives us about 53 GWh per day. The lifetime of them is expected to be around 60 to 80 year, but lets take 60. That’s about 1177200 GWh over it’s lifetime, divided by the 36 billion that it cost to built… Gives you about 0.03 dollars per kWh. Which is pretty much as good as renewables get as well. But of course, this ignores maintenance, but that’s hard to calculate for solar panels as well. As such it will be somewhat larger than 0.03, I will admit.

  Solar panels on the other hand, often have a lifetime of 30 years, so even though it costs less per watt, MW, or GW, it also produces less over time. For solar, and wind, that’s about the same.. So this doesn’t really say much.

  But that wasn’t even the point of my message. As I said, I agree that Nuclear is slightly more expensive than renewables. But there are other costs associated with renewables that aren’t expressed well in monetary value for their units alone. Infrastructure, space, approval, experts to maintain it.

  Let’s ignore that no grid in the country actually needs 10hr storage yet. Because they cannot. They can’t do it because there’s not enough capacity. If the sun is cloudy for a day, and the wind doesn’t run. Who’s going to power the grid for a day? That’s right. Mostly coal and gas. That’s the point. Nuclear is there to ensure we don’t go back to fossils when we want to be carbon neutral, which means no output. If you are carbon neutral only when the weather is perfect for renewables, then you’re not really carbon neutral and still would have to produce a ton of pollution at times.

  I’m glad batteries and all are getting cheaper. They are definitely needed, also for nuclear. But you must also be aware of just how damn dirty they are to produce. The minerals required produce them are rare, and expensive. Wind power also kills people that need to maintain it. Things aren’t so black and white.

  Also consider that PV and batteries have always gotten cheaper over time, while nuclear has always gotten more expensive.

  This is not true, and it should be obvious when you think about it. Since this data fluctuates all the time. Nuclear has been more expensive in the past, before getting cheaper, and now getting more expensive again. Solar and wind have had peaks of being far more expensive than before. These numbers are just a representation of aggregate data, and they often leave out nuance like renewables being favored by regulations and subsidies. They are in part a manifestation of the resistance to nuclear. Unlike renewables, there are many more steps to be made for efficiency in nuclear. Most development has (justifiably) been focused on safety so far, as with solar and wind and batteries we can look away from the slave labor on the other side of the world to produce the rare earth metals needed for it. There is no free lunch in this world.

  For what it’s purpose should be, which is to provide a baseline production of electricity when renewables are not as effective. A higher price can be justified. It’s not meant to replace renewables altogether. Because if renewables can’t produce clean energy, their price might as well be infinitely high in that moment, which leaves our only options to be fossil fuels, hydro, batteries, or nuclear. Fossil fuels should be obvious, not everyone has hydro (let alone enough), batteries don’t have the capacity or numbers at the scale required (for the foreseeable future), and nuclear is here right now.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon questions our energy sector⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Solar and wind are cheaper yes. Batteries, no. If batteries were that cheap and easy to place we’d have solved energy a long time ago. Currently batteries don’t hold a candle to live production, the closest you can get is hydro storage, which not everyone has, and can’t realistically be built everywhere.

  Look at the stats. The second largest battery storage in the US (and the world) is located near the Moss Landing Power Plant. It proves a capacity of 3000 MWh with 6000 MWh planned. That sounds like a lot, but it’s located next to San Jose and San Fransisco, so lets pick just one of those counties to compare. The average energy usage in the county of San Clara is 17101 GWh per year, which is about 46.8 GWh per day, or 46800 MWh. So you’d need 8 more of those at 6000 MWh to even be able to store a day’s worth of electricity from that county alone, which has a population of about 2 million people. And that’s not even talking about all the realities that come with electricity like peak loads.

  Relative to how much space wind and solar use, nuclear is the clear winner. If a country doesn’t have massive amounts of empty area nuclear is unmissable. People also really hate seeing solar and wind farm. That’s not something I personally mind too much, but even in the best of countries people oppose renewables simply because it ruins their surroundings to them. Creating the infrastructure for such distributed energy networks to sustain large solar and wind farms is also quite hard and requires personnel that the entire world has shortages of, while a nuclear reactor is centralized and much easier to set up since it’s similar to current power plants. But a company that can build a nuclear plant isn’t going to be able to build a solar farm, or a wind farm, and in a similar way if every company that can make solar farms or wind farms is busy, their price will go up too. By balancing the load between all three renewables, we ensure the transition can happen as fast and affordable as possible.

  There’s also the fact that it always works and can be scaled up or down on demand, and as such is the least polluting source (on the same level as renewables) that can reliably replace coal, natural gas, biomass, and any other always available source. You don’t want to fall back on those when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. If batteries were available to store that energy it’d be a different story. But unless you have large natural batteries like hydro plans with storage basins that you can pump water up to with excess electricity, it’s not sustainable. I’d wish it was, but it’s not. As it stands now, the world needs both renewables and nuclear to go fully neutral. Until something even better like nuclear fission becomes viable.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NNN⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Definitely not just you, I instantly said “holy shit this is one ancient meme”. I remember it too from the early 2000’s.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Proud globohomo⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, but most people dont have that or take way too long than is worth for a simple meme. There already exist models to unblur entire images in seconds. Ai should take the shitty work lol.