Skip to content

Front Brake Lights Could Drastically Diminish Road Accident Rates

Technology
337 165 9.7k
  • 266 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    drdystopia@lemy.lolD
    You’re focusing on their use of AI No, I'm focusing on the hypocrisy of calling it green. A lot of other people are focusing on the AI tech though. They’re a non-profit company that gives 100% of their profits That's not how non-profit profits work. 100% of the surplus might be invested in green causes but that's after operating costs, salaries and a plethora of minor expense posts are handled using their profit/income. It’s hardly greenwashing. If legitimizing polluting technology by saying we're doing such a great job at combating pollution isn't green washing, perhaps I've misunderstood the term? It was certainly used against the billionaires flying to climate conferences, their argument was that they did such an important job for the environment that they should be able to fly private jets to the meetings. Others called it a green washing of their personal travel arrangements. Your complaint just doesn’t make sense. That's OK, I'm not too bothered about being understood by every single person I come in contact with. Sometimes the divide between worldviews is simply too big to try to bridge.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • What will the AI revolution mean for the global south?

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    31 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    snotflickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneS
    More contractual gig work less direct employment. They AI companies are going to Mechanical Turk this shit the whole way.
  • 351 Stimmen
    43 Beiträge
    528 Aufrufe
    S
    Yup. The greatest danger of AI, is the corporations and governments having sole control of it. That is why it is important for ordinary people to not reject AI usage, but to make it cheap and common enough that no one has to rely on the elite for access. Be it guns, food, shelter, or knowledge, no one should have a monopoly. That is just asking to be abused.
  • The Prime Reasons to Avoid Amazon

    Technology technology
    88
    1
    396 Stimmen
    88 Beiträge
    4k Aufrufe
    X
    Yeah, not a choice any of us who work in tech can make. But the small choices we CAN make do add up significantly.
  • 363 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    86 Aufrufe
    A
    No I don't think there really were many so your point is valid But the law works like that, things are in a grey area or in limbo until they are defined into law. That means the new law can be written to either protect consumer privacy, or make it legal to the letter to rape consumer privacy like this bill, or some weird inbetween where some shady stuff is still explicitly allowed but in general consumers are protected in specific ways from specific privacy abuses This bill being the second option is bad because typically when laws are written it then takes a loooong time to reverse them
  • 𝗙𝗼𝗼𝗺 & Doom: “Brain in a box in a basement”

    Technology technology
    1
    7 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 310 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    394 Aufrufe
    S
    Same, especially when searching technical or niche topics. Since there aren't a ton of results specific to the topic, mostly semi-related results will appear in the first page or two of a regular (non-Gemini) Google search, just due to the higher popularity of those webpages compared to the relevant webpages. Even the relevant webpages will have lots of non-relevant or semi-relevant information surrounding the answer I'm looking for. I don't know enough about it to be sure, but Gemini is probably just scraping a handful of websites on the first page, and since most of those are only semi-related, the resulting summary is a classic example of garbage in, garbage out. I also think there's probably something in the code that looks for information that is shared across multiple sources and prioritizing that over something that's only on one particular page (possibly the sole result with the information you need). Then, it phrases the summary as a direct answer to your query, misrepresenting the actual information on the pages they scraped. At least Gemini gives sources, I guess. The thing that gets on my nerves the most is how often I see people quote the summary as proof of something without checking the sources. It was bad before the rollout of Gemini, but at least back then Google was mostly scraping text and presenting it with little modification, along with a direct link to the webpage. Now, it's an LLM generating text phrased as a direct answer to a question (that was also AI-generated from your search query) using AI-summarized data points scraped from multiple webpages. It's obfuscating the source material further, but I also can't help but feel like it exposes a little of the behind-the-scenes fuckery Google has been doing for years before Gemini. How it bastardizes your query by interpreting it into a question, and then prioritizes homogeneous results that agree on the "answer" to your "question". For years they've been doing this to a certain extent, they just didn't share how they interpreted your query.