Skip to content

OpenAI supremo Sam Altman says he 'doesn't know how' he would have taken care of his baby without the help of ChatGPT

Technology
50 44 0
  • 145 Stimmen
    71 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    C
    I think people would find new ways to struggle that they actually enjoy and would likely end up contributing. Imagine a couple of thousand people with their new modest but stress free budgets decide to join a yearly potato cannon contest, Sure its not going to invent anything new directly but you now have a bunch of people learning about ballistics and stoichiometry and high pressure engineering all egging eachother on to shoot that potato further. The competition gets more and more fierce and with the much lower stakes people start trying some more out there ideas, before you know it you have a modest but highly effective solution to reliably obtaining the correct gas mixture for something like a combined light gas gun. And that's a deliberately silly example, you'd get a ton more art, people deciding to be athletes, coders, all sorts of hobies that can encourage healthy competition and often benefit society in surprising ways.
  • 16 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    R
    Even with pirated Spotify the worsening of recommendations pushed me to pirate another service. Which is a win for Spotify, I guess.
  • How Social Media Brings Out the Worst in Us

    Technology technology
    14
    1
    120 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    sturgist@lemmy.caS
    Suffering from asthma? 9/10 Doctors recommend menthol cigarettes! Peppermint fresh puts the pep in your step!
  • What was Radiant AI, anyway?

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    20 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    T
    In fact Daggerfall was almost nothing but quests and other content like that.
  • 137 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    treadful@lemmy.zipT
    https://archive.is/oTR8Q
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • 50 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    G
    Anyone here use XING?
  • 209 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    L
    people do get desensitized down there from watching alot of porn, and there were other forums discussing thier "ED" from decade of porn watching.