the UN gave them money to research ways the UN could use AI, so that is what they did.

That’s kind of my point… They didn’t. To research ways the un could use ai, you could have workshops and interviews with various groups, experts and non-experts alike. You don’t just pick one, utterly insane use case (that is called out beforehand as such) and implement that. You do research on the options and pick either the best ones or, if there’s no good one, none!

To come up with a research project, it has to go through various pitches, drafts and proposals. I can’t imagine every single control instance failing so utterly that this kind of project with this high school level of arguing (“well, we could do this, so why wouldn’t we?”) passes each of them. There has to be a better reason why they did this. And if there really isn’t, a lot of people should ask themselves what the fuck they’re getting paid for if they let this happen - and some other people if they’re the ones who should fire the former.

Those are kind of non-answers… “Why the fuck are you doing that?” and the answers are all “Well, somebody’s probably doing it at some point, so why don’t we do it now?” or “you gotta try stuff” as if that explains anything. Like, no, there are some things that don’t need to be tested. This is arguing on the level of “Caaaaarl, that kills people!” You don’t need to punch people in the face to know that’s a dumb thing to do. You don’t need to spill milk to know it’s a dumb thing to do. And you sure as fuck don’t need to date somebody you dislike to know that fucking them is a dumb thing to do or create ai refugees as the UN to know it’s a dumb thing to do! Like, what argument is that? We’re not talking to three-year-olds that have never touched a candle! The UN should be able to anticipate the consequences of their actions! ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAD WORKSHOPS WHERE PEOPLE TOLD THEM IT’S A FUCKING DUMB THING TO DO!! So, no, those aren’t answers.

In early tests at a workshop attended by humanitarian organizations, refugee aid groups, and nonprofits, Albrecht and Fournier-Tombs said the reactions were strong and that many were negative. “Why would we want to present refugees as AI creations when there are millions of refugees who can tell their stories as real human beings?” one person said

I love how the article then proceeds to not answer this question. What a dumb idea. What a waste of UN funds.

If you can bear the cringe of the interviewer, there’s a good interview with Penrose that goes on the same direction: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9484gNpFF8

It’s not a single bit worse than before the announcement.

No no no, you don’t get it! Humans only have eyes, so cars that only have eyes should perform just as good as humans! Disregard that humans don’t perform well in fog or rain or generally anything that isn’t good weather and also disregard that to match our eyes’ resolution you’d need extremely high resolution cameras that produce way too much data for current computers and also disregard that most of the stuff isn’t happening in our eyes but in our brains and also disregard that the point that is usually being made to advocate for self driving cars is that they should be better than humans!

Yeah, same here.

How can you be so dense?

Using a calculator for math is cheating unless it has been explicitly allowed. Which it isn’t until higher grades because before that, people are supposed to do math without a calculator. Which they should do to get a proper understanding about the subject.

The same holds for literally any tool. If the goal is to get the students to be able to convincingly communicate their thoughts or to see if they understood a topic by making them explain it, having them use chatgpt accomplished nothing and just wastes everybody’s time. If the goal is to see if they can produce enough bullshit to satisfy an average public administration, then letting them use llms might be valid. Just like any other tool, it’s legitimate to allow llms or not, based on whatever is supposed to end up in a student’s head. But using it without it being allowed is cheating, simple as that.

DS9 is waaaay better than voyager.

That’s debatable. Both had their flaws, but I really preferred Voyager’s idea of “dang, it’s going to take us decades to get home and we’re in uncharted territory, so let’s explore the hell out of our way back” over DS9’s “were sitting at the galaxy’s newly discovered traffic junction and our new enemies look like anything, so our major conflict is that anybody could be a traitor and our utopia is turned upside down into a surveillance state”.

Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder

Yeah, Fira Code gang!

I, too, like my ls to show titty colours.

I don’t want slimmer, I want smaller! Give me back my 4.5" screen 😩

So you’re spewing irrelevant nonsense just to ridicule people who call you out on your irrelevant nonsense by telling them you know it’s irrelevant nonsense?

The Xperia compact series were dream devices. 😩

I really hate that I think this might be an option for me, just because I’d really like a phone with a small screen and flip phone with outside screens that you just leave closed seem to be the only fucking option to get one.

Your point is purely anecdotal. I see lots of Teslas where I live, so there’s that. I also see more BEVs than PHEVs, which is also in line with sales figures.

So, to be blunt, I think your perception is skewed or wrong.

I just explained how they are effectively doing that because a dongle is such a terrible solution that it’s essentially not usable. I can repeat my points, from charging over being pulled out, and add that they are either incompatible with some devices that don’t supply the analogue audio signal over USB (so you’re usually just buying one of those to see if they work, are happy if it does and then annoyed when you need to use it on another device where it doesn’t and boom you’re suddenly left without working headphones despite having one of those stupid dongles) or come with probably the cheapest, suckishest piece of shit DAC some underpaid Chinese procurement jerk could find anywhere on the market, so the audio quality will probably be terrible even when using wired speakers on a fucking dongle.

Is there a law that prohibits me from trying to keep using wired headphones? No, so you’re right there that they’re not technically forcing anyone. But in anything but making it technically impossible, they’re making it as unusable and unlikeable as possible, so effectively, there’s no way around using Bluetooth headphones.

when a better one already existed

Agree with everything, but it’s not just that it existed, it’s that it was also already widely adopted for literal decades. This was an established solution that is now getting replaced with something worse. This isn’t betamax that just lost the adoption race against a competitor.

You keep arguing that people can just use a dongle. I can keep arguing that a dongle solution sucks ass. I have used a dongle and even the way it’s just used sucks because it’s pulled out of the socket with much less force than headphones, so it keeps getting disconnected. If you like it, fine. I don’t and I still think that removing the jack is a dumb decision. This is getting nowhere.