Skip to content

Amazon is reportedly training humanoid robots to deliver packages

Technology
142 86 0
  • An earnest question about the AI/LLM hate

    Technology technology
    3
    4 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    ada@piefed.blahaj.zoneA
    It's a hugely disruptive technology, that is harmful to the environment, being taken up and given center stage by a host of folk who don't understand it. Like the industrial revolution, it has the chance to change the world in a massive way, but in doing so, it's going to fuck over a lot of people, and notch up greenhouse gas output. In a decade or two, we probably won't remember what life was like without them, but lots of people are going to be out of jobs, have their income streams cut off and have no alternatives available to them whilst that happens. And whilst all of that is going on, we're getting told that it's the best most amazing thing that we all need, and it's being stuck in to everything, including things that don't benefit from the presence of an LLM, and sometimes, where the presence of an LLM can be actively harmful
  • Selling Surveillance as Convenience

    Technology technology
    13
    1
    109 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    E
    Trying to get my peers to care about their own privacy is exhausting. I wish their choices don't effect me, but like this article states.. They do in the long run. I will remain stubborn and only compromise rather than give in.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 186 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    N
    Part of the reason for my use of "might".
  • Generative AI's most prominent skeptic doubles down

    Technology technology
    14
    1
    43 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Z
    I don't think so, and I believe not even the current technology used for neural network simulations will bring us to AGI, yet alone LLMs.
  • 464 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • Things at Tesla are worse than they appear

    Technology technology
    34
    1
    420 Stimmen
    34 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    halcyon@discuss.tchncs.deH
    [image: a4f3b70f-db20-4c1d-b737-611548cf3104.jpeg]
  • 2 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    F
    IMO stuff like that is why a good trainer is important. IMO it's stronger evidence that proper user-centered design should be done and a usable and intuitive UX and set of APIs developed. But because the buyer of this heap of shit is some C-level, there is no incentive to actually make it usable for the unfortunate peons who are forced to interact with it. See also SFDC and every ERP solution in existence.