Skip to content

The New York Times Just Published Some Bizarre Race Science About Asian Women

Technology
100 71 1.8k
  • 581 Stimmen
    133 Beiträge
    157 Aufrufe
    B
    They Did have a good idea in the begining. Tutanova remains.
  • Musk's AI firm deletes posts after chatbot praises Adolf Hitler

    Technology technology
    53
    1
    499 Stimmen
    53 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    S
    Some of them were
  • Trump Mobile launches $47 service and a gold phone

    Technology technology
    129
    1
    356 Stimmen
    129 Beiträge
    3k Aufrufe
    S
    Why mention it? Because the media has a DUTY to call out a corrupt government! Because they're not doing their job!
  • 353 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    533 Aufrufe
    L
    If AI constantly refined its own output, sure, unless it hits a wall eventually or starts spewing bullshit because of some quirk of training. But I doubt it could learn to summarise better without external input, just like a compiler won't produce a more optimised version of itself without human development work.
  • 40 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    93 Aufrufe
    T
    Clearly the author doesn't understand how capitalism works. If Apple can pick you up by the neck, turn you upside down, and shake whatever extra money it can from you then it absolutely will do so. The problem is that one indie developer doesn't have any power over Apple... so they can go fuck themselves. The developer is granted the opportunity to grovel at the feet of their betters (richers) and pray that they are allowed to keep enough of their own crop to survive the winter. If they don't survive... then some other dev will probably jump at the chance to take part in the "free market" and demonstrate their worth.
  • Why Decentralized Social Media Matters

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    388 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    381 Aufrufe
    fizz@lemmy.nzF
    Yeah we're kinda doing well. Retaining 50k mau from the initial user burst is really good and Lemmy was technologically really bad at the time. Its a lot more developed today. I think next time reddit fucks uo we spike to over 100k users and steadily grow from there.
  • 461 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    1k 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.
  • 3 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    173 Aufrufe
    M
    Are most people in "the west" worse off today than they were 150 years ago? Are there fewer well functioning democracies than there were then? Has no minority group seen any improvement in their freedom? Has there been no improvement in how people interact with each other? No improvement in poverty?