dustyData
@dustyData@lemmy.world
- Comment on 6* months away now. If you're on 10, do you plan to upgrade? Make the jump to Linux? 1 week ago:
Whatever you do. Don’t dualboot. It gives a wrong impression of what Linux is, and complexity is not inherently a part of it. Try Mint as a live USB OS first. That means the OS runs from a USB thumb drive. This will allow you to dip your toes before you dive in. Just like dipping toes, it’s a no-compromise way of testing, but if you choose to install you already have 90% of what you need.
- Comment on Switch 2 mouse mode (such potential) 2 weeks ago:
$80 digital. $90 physical. With the added spite that the “physical” copy is just a cartridge that loads a code for the game download. It’s just a $10 plastic box with an SD card with a download code inside.
- Comment on Switch 2 mouse mode (such potential) 2 weeks ago:
$90 per game. That’s an instant deal breaker.
- Comment on Does Google scan yt videos to know what products appear in them? 2 weeks ago:
This is what the big deal about cookies and privacy is all about.
- Comment on Does Google scan yt videos to know what products appear in them? 2 weeks ago:
YouTube doesn’t share exact user info. But, google ads platform does have the metrics and can show the Amazon seller statistics of interest when buying ad prints on YouTube videos. Like search terms and referral links click right after or before the video played.
This happens automatically and virtually without human intervention though. It’s just bots talking to bots talking to bots. It all happens in milliseconds after you click play. By the time your web browser has started loading the player, yt opened a bid for the ad spot, thousands of companies chose to bid on that video based on a myriad of parameters and statistics, a winner was chosen based on pledged money, then a video ad is loaded to the server ready to play.
GAds assigns every video several keywords, based on information from the uploader, then watches user behavior to assign meta tags. Videos are scanned, to search for curse words, nudity, copyright and other offending material automatically. I don’t think they scan for objects shown in the video to assign tags about the kind of product, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
- Comment on Other than a faulty charging port, is there any reason to use a wireless phone charger over wired? 2 weeks ago:
All our modern charging methods are really bad for batteries. Wireless is inductive which means the charging voltage is noisy and very variable, this means heat and that stresses the batteries faster. But, wired charging with PD uses really high voltages, which are sometimes way too fast. Also stressing the battery. We’ll see what comes of it but the recent couple of phone generations are prone to be the ones with the worse battery life expectancy.
Companies are usually aiming for 80% at two years time. That means that a phone that barely survives a day when new, will not make it through the day two years after. As the battery loses capacity, it requires more charges per day, accelerating the degradation.
Here’s iFixit assessment of wireless charging.
This is MKHB on why heat hurts batteries and how companies try to fight back the damage of fast charging.
- Comment on Other than a faulty charging port, is there any reason to use a wireless phone charger over wired? 2 weeks ago:
The one’s I have seen are phonn cases. You put the wireless battery in a special pocket in the back of the case that ensures perfect continue alignement and secure it in place.
- Comment on 'vegetative electron microscopy' 3 weeks ago:
Reading about those studies is pretty interesting. Usually the neurons do most of the heavy lifting, adapting to the I/O chip input and output. It’s almost an admittance that we don’t yet fully understand what we are dealing with, when we try to interface with our rudimentary tech.
- Comment on 'vegetative electron microscopy' 3 weeks ago:
Dear lord, I found Elon’s Lemmy account.
- Comment on 'vegetative electron microscopy' 3 weeks ago:
Notably, computer science is not neurology. Neither is equipped to meddle in the other’s field. If brains were just very fast and powerful computers, then neuroscientist should be able to work with computers and engineers on brains. But they are not equivalent. Consciousness, intelligence, memory, world modeling, motor control and input consolidation are way more complex than just faster computing. And Turing completeness is irrelevant. The brain is not a Turing machine. It does not process tokens one at a time. Turing completeness is a technology term, it shares with Turing machines the name alone, as Turing’s philosophical argument was not meant to be a test or guarantee of anything. Complete misuse of the concept.
- Comment on 'vegetative electron microscopy' 3 weeks ago:
The human brain is not a computer. It was a fun simile to make in the 80s when computers rose in popularity. It stuck in popular culture, but time and time again neuroscientists and psychologists have found that it is a poor metaphor. The more we know about the brain the less it looks like a computer. Pattern recognition is barely a tiny fraction of what the human brain does, not even the most important function, and computers suck at it. No computer is anywhere close to do what a human brain can do in many different ways.
- Comment on He's just eccentric 3 weeks ago:
You know how neurodivergence is one category with a lot of different and diverse conditions and spectrums. Neurotypical is that as well. Not all neurotypical people are alike, there’s diversity as well.
- Comment on We had a deal 3 weeks ago:
No joke, sometimes constipation causes headaches. Gut health is super important for well being.
- Comment on Anon is waiting for Japan 3 weeks ago:
See, that’s your problem. You’re arguing, with me, about something that was said to you by someone else. Do you realize why I’m questioning your argumentative skills?
Here’s a source to a study about AI’s accuracy as a search engine. The main use case proposed for LLMs as a tool is indexing a bunch of text, then summarizing and answering questions about it in natural language.
AI Search Has A Citation Problem
Another use is creating or modifying text based on an input or prompt, however, LLMs are prone to hallucinations. Here’s a deep dive into what they are, why they occur and the challenges of dealing with them.
Decoding LLM Hallucinations: A Deep Dive into Language Model Errors
I don’t know why do I even bother. You are just going to ignore the sources and dismiss them as well.
- Comment on Anon is waiting for Japan 3 weeks ago:
No one ever said they were. You constructed that straw man because you can’t tolerate the idea that most people think AI is bad. It’s not just an opinion. It’s a widely popular opinion supported by a ton of evidence, tons of logical and reasonable arguments, and well documented. I provided at least 4 different arguments and your response to all of them was “yes, but I don’t want to talk about it”. So, you know I’m right yet refuse to acknowledge it because it hurts your ego so much that you feel the need to defend it on an internet forum.
All of which makes me return to the beginning. You’re not smart enough to have a grown up conversation a out AI without its assistance. So I will now stop providing arguments that you don’t want to hear, as obviously the only thing you want to hear is how great AI is. Unfortunately, AI bad.
- Comment on Anon is waiting for Japan 3 weeks ago:
And there it is. Wants to have a discussion. Dismisses all arguments instead of tackling them head on. It’s not just my opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of people, due to a myriad of reasons I already explained. That you just refuse to see them is the problem with AI bullshitters here on Lemmy. You are the one arguing in bad faith.
- Comment on Anon is waiting for Japan 3 weeks ago:
But, the output is trash. Only incompetent people think LLMs produce great results. They don’t.
- Comment on Anon is waiting for Japan 3 weeks ago:
Want to discuss the technical qualities of napalm?
I mean, it’s obviously not a “bad” tool of warfare, it’s just the bad people who use it. It obviously is a separate issue from war crimes committed with it, there’s nothing inherently wrong with napalm.
This idea that technology must be evaluated on a vacuum, disconnected from the context that created and uses it, is disingenuous at best and malicious at its worst. Technology, tools, inventions, carry with them the moral and ethical burden of their historical context.
LLMs as we know them today, came to be from massive theft, and continue to promote their own use and improvement with further thievery, fraud and lies. The fraud is not a separate topic, it’s intrinsically a part of LLMs. To speak of LLMs is to speak about fraud, copyright infringement and theft. They cannot exist without theft, at least not in their current level of prowess and use. To defend them is to promote corporate crimes on a billion dollars and worldwide scale.
- Comment on Anon is waiting for Japan 3 weeks ago:
“If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it.”
Your autocorrect software is failing you.
What is your argument? It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty? That’s a shit argument to make.
If AI is “just a tool”, then how come it doesn’t do any of the things it is promised to do? The issue is not expecting “a hammer to drive to work”. The problem is that LLMs makers promised a car, you order one, and receive a screwdriver on the mail. Because “screwdrivers are just a tool, you can use it to assemble a car”. It’s a scam, it is fraud, it is lying and stealing from others to capitalize on bad tech.
If AI is just a tool, its an unethical and immoral tool.
- Comment on Anon is waiting for Japan 3 weeks ago:
Then stop dismissing other people’s “argumentets”. Unfortunately, most AI proponents don’t realize that the AI use case that is being pushed by it’s makers and owners is not “a tool to assist users”, but “a tool for executives to replace humans”. Is it a dumb proposal? absolutely. It doesn’t reduce the moral responsibility of those promoting AI. They are supporting the destruction of people’s livelihoods to make the wealthiest human being in history slightly wealthier, and curse knowledge workers to poverty just like factory workers were in their time by the exact same political and economic class of soulless pricks.
- Comment on Anon is waiting for Japan 3 weeks ago:
Why argue with someone who isn’t intelligent enough to write their essays without mechanical assistance?
- Comment on Anon builds a new PC 4 weeks ago:
It’s so satisfying to see mangohud jumping into the hundreds of FPS while knowing the game is cranking the highest quality image fidelity it is capable of. It’s like taking an apartment dog to a park and releasing the leash. Run baby, run as fast as you can.
- Comment on Free Him! 4 weeks ago:
They are vet masks. They are generic and on different sizes. The largest one can fit several small animals. The smallest ones are for cats and tiny dogs. I think the largest one they make are for horses and cattle. But they have special fittings for straps. This ones are rubber ring ended so they are easier to use to makeshift a tiny gas chamber.
- Comment on Anon uses Windows 4 weeks ago:
Technologically impaired pervy old people and Windows are always a bad mix.
I was once the trigger to fire an old accounting guy from a company because I was helping him do something with a cloud feature of office and a porn notification showed up. He had inadvertently installed some notifications from a porn website.
After the awkwardest silence in history I had to inform him that I needed to report that to management. He just said, ok.
IT later discovered that he was not only watching porn on company time. He was also taking creep pictures of female coworkers and saving them to the company gdrive. Upon further notice, he was not only a pervert, he was also embezzling money. We had to file several criminal charges against him.
I guess the old adage of ‘break only one law at a time’ holds true. If he weren’t a pervert we never would’ve noticed the stealing.
- Comment on Anon fixes their games 5 weeks ago:
Are we going philosophical now? If your brain filters it out from consciousness, are you really seeing it? If you are aware that the brain filtered it, did it really filtered it?
- Comment on Anon fixes their games 5 weeks ago:
That’s sensitivity, not shutter speed. Eye’s do not require time for exposure, but a quanta or intensity of light. This sensitivity is variable, but not in a time dilated way. Notice that you don’t see blurrier in darker conditions, unlike a camera. You do see in duller colors, as a result of higher engagement of rods instead of cones. The first are more sensitive but less dense in the fovea, and not sensitive to color. While a camera remains as colorful but more prone to motion blur. This is because the brain does not take individual frames of time to process a single still and particular image. The brain analyses the signals from the eye continuously, dynamically and in parallel from each individual sensor, cone is rod.
In other words, eye’s still don’t have, even a figurative, shutter speed.
- Comment on Anon fixes their games 5 weeks ago:
Explain, don’t just antagonize. I bet you don’t understand the basic physics either. I’m open to learn new things. What is the eye’s shutter speed? sustain your claim with sources.
- Comment on Anon fixes their games 5 weeks ago:
No, they don’t. As there is no shutter in a continuous parallel neural stream. But, if you have any research paper that says so, go ahead and share.
- Comment on Anon fixes their games 5 weeks ago:
On Motion blur, our eye’s motion blur, and camera’s shutter speed motion blur are not the same. Eyes don’t have a shutter speed. Whatever smearing we see is the result of relaxed processing on the brain side. Under adrenaline with heavy focus, our motion blur disappears as our brain goes full power trying to keep us alive. If you are sleep deprived and physically tired, then everything is blurred, even with little motion from head or eyes.
Over 99% of eye movement (e.g. saccadic eye movement) is ignored by the brain and won’t produce a blurred impression. It’s more common to notice vehicular fast movement, like when sitting in a car, as having some blur. But it can be easily overcome by focused attention and compensatory eye tracking or ocular stabilization. In the end, most of these graphical effects emulate camera behavior than natural experience, and thus are perceived as more artificial than the same games without the effects. When our brain sees motion blur it thinks movie theater, not natural everyday vision.
- Comment on Mickey 17 is a big middle finger to space-obsessed strongmen [Review] 5 weeks ago:
It’s more pensive and slow, with a darker mood, but the script is really good.