So confirmation bias. Gotcha. That's generally not a great way to make sweeping generalizations about 50% of the population. You ever hear that adage about smelling shit wherever you go, maybe check your shoes?

True, they will always play the victim even as they're hurting and exploiting people they see as less than. Don't allow them to have any evidence of credibility. I think his idea of hell would probably be having to lower himself to the standard of living most people would consider normal and comfortable. Having to learn to actually survive day to day if he were to find himself suddenly without a cent of the money he was born into and all future wages and earnings garnished to pay the people he has harmed, would probably be a fate worse than any hell he could imagine. I know there's no justice and there is pretty much no chance of him ever facing any sort of proportional punishment or consequence for his actions. But, if I could make it happen, having to suddenly learn to survive with the rest of us mortals in the society he has helped create, in his late fifties, wondering how he will even afford something as basic as healthcare while his body rapidly ages from stress and gradually falls apart, after a lifetime of unimaginable privilege, unable to go anywhere or do anything he enjoys without being recognized and having people curse his name. That would be the fate I would wish on somebody like him.

That has always been the two big problems with AI. Biases in the training, intentional or not, will always bias the output. And AI is incapable of saying "I do not have suffient training on this subject or reliable sources for it to give you a confident answer". It will always give you its best guess, even if it is completely hallucinating much of the data. The only way to identify the hallucinations if it isn't just saying absurd stuff on the face of it, it to do independent research to verify it, at which point you may as well have just researched it yourself in the first place. AI is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool with the right training and use cases. For example, I use it at a software engineer to help me parse error codes when googling working or to give me code examples for modules I've never used. There is no small number of times it has been completely wrong, but in my particular use case, that is pretty easy to confirm very quickly. The code either works as expected or it doesn't, and code is always tested before releasing it anyway. In research, it is great at helping you find a relevant source for your research across the internet or in a specific database. It is usually very good at summarizing a source for you to get a quick idea about it before diving into dozens of pages. It CAN be good at helping you write your own papers in a LIMITED capacity, such as cleaning up your writing in your writing to make it clearer, correctly formatting your bibliography (with actual sources you provide or at least verify), etc. But you have to remember that it doesn't "know" anything at all. It isn't sentient, intelligent, thoughtful, or any other personification placed on AI. None of the information it gives you is trustworthy without verification. It can and will fabricate entire studies that do not exist even while attributed to real researcher. It can mix in unreliable information with reliable information becuase there is no difference to it. Put simply, it is not a reliable source of information... ever. Make sure you understand that.

Yeah, not a choice any of us who work in tech can make. But the small choices we CAN make do add up significantly.

Anyone here use XING?

Cool. Well, the feedback until now was rather lukewarm. But that's fine, I'm now going more in a P2P-direction. It would be cool to have a way for everybody to participate in the training of big AI models in case HuggingFace enshittifies