In that it’s mostly a merch ad hidden behind a clickbait title.
So I guess it’s a good test for that sort of “just read the headline” response.
It’s been a rough few days and I think I may be coming around. What hope is there to parse AI misinformation if people can’t parse a Reddit-like link aggregator?
I may be done with this place at this point. It’s just all bad. If not the whole Internet, certainly the whole of social media.
Not really, it’s more of a farmer’s lobby protecting animal products from vegetarian alternatives.
Which as someone else says below is a bit neutral and doesn’t do much, but hey. They did it to milk.
Guessing it’s some bargaining chip with the industry on the wider legislation they’re passing? This stuff is pretty byzantine. European agricultural industries are constantly on the verge of setting stuff on fire. It’s a full time job to be even vaguely aware of what’s going on with them.
Yeah, but… this isn’t that.
You’re literally saying “well, anecdotal impressions say this, so I refute this study that says something else”.
We don’t like that. That’s not a thing we like to do.
And for the record, as these things go, the article linked here is pretty good. I’ve seen more than one worse example of a study being reported in the press today.
They provide a neutral headline that conveys the takeaway of the study, they provide context about companies mentioning AIs on layoffs, they provide a link to the full study and they provide a separate study that yields different, seemingly contradicting results.
I mean, this is as close to best case scenario for reporting on a study as you can get in mainstream press. If nothing else, kudos to The Register. The bar was low but they went for personal best anyway.
Man, the problem with giving up all the wonky fashy social media is that when you’re in an echo chamber all the weird misinformation and emotion-driven politics are coming from inside the house. It’s been a particularly rough day for politically-adjacent but epistemologically depressing posts today.
So the report itself argues there is a need for better data, and it seems fairly level headed, but…
…what’s with people being mad about it?
I say this a lot, but there seems to be a lot of weird anti-hype where people want this AI stuff to work better than it does so it can be worse than it is, and I’m often confused by it. The takeaway here is that most jobs don’t seem to be behaving that differently so far if you look at the labor market in aggregate. Which is… fine? It’s not that unexpected? The AI shills were selling that entire industries would be replaced by AI overnight, and most sensible people didn’t think so or argued that the jobs would get replaced with AI wrangler tasks because this thing wouldn’t completely automate most tasks in ways that weren’t already available.
Which seems to be most of what’s going on. AI art is 100% not production-ready out of the gate, AI text seems to be a bit of a wash in terms of saving time for programmers and even in more obvious industries like customer service we already had a bunch of bots and automation in place.
So what’s all the anger? Did people want this to be worse? Do they just want to vibe with the economy being bad in a way they can pin on something they already don’t like and maybe politics is too heavy now? What’s going on there?
No worries, I appreciate that.
FWIW, I don’t really care about downvotes either way. I am clearly not here to pander, with my “NUANCED POINT IS NUANCED, YOU NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY CHILDREN” persona.
It is absolutely fair to criticise them for the stuff they are actually doing, yes.
That’s why I wrote:
I mean, that’s all really bad. Why do we need the hyperbolic “Google is killing Open Source” framing? The real thing is bad enough and it doesn’t make me show up to argue about it. Plus you could have accurately stated “Google kills anonymous apps, threatening alternate app stores” and that would have been 100% accurate and just as horrifying.
Again, there is no need to slippery slope this crap, because it’s bad now. So why even point out how little you trust Google will do the bad thing they said they are doing for 100% real and imagine a worse thing they’ll do later, even if it’s likely that they will? All it does is invite pedants like me to argue with you, which can then be weaponized by Google to say you’re deliberately misrepresenting the issue.
I know. And I didn’t defend Google’s ownership of your phone.
See how annoying that is?
The second person is rhetorical there. I’m saying whether you believe that in all caps and bold letters is entirely irrelevant to whether the video title is misrepresenting the issue.
I don’t care who you trust, honestly.
I have no patience for slippery slope arguments to justify poor reporting or misinformation.
For what it’s worth, I do think there is a slippery slope and it’s reasonable to expect things to tighten down the line without regulatory intervention.
But that doesn’t matter, because this is bad even if nothing like that happens down the line, and even if Google can’t be trusted the coverage is misrepresenting the issue.
Man, I hate the Internet.
Cool.
So title the video like that and don’t misrepresent it and I’ll be here agreeing with you.
“But I disagree with what Google is doing” is a non sequitur here.
You guys keep misrepresenting things I disagree with and make me fact check them, then argue with me as if I’m agreeing with them.
Google isn’t killing Open Source Android apps, although it may very well kill F-Droid. Open source devs can definitely still register and provide their apps as a standalone APK.
This does open the door to Google refusing to grant an account to people they don’t like, although they haven’t done that yet, and it should be noted that as they present it once you have a dev account you can just sign as many apps as you want.
The real eff you from Google to F-Droid here is that they are presenting two types of accounts you can use for this: dev accounts, meant to publish on Google Play (although potentially you could just… not do that) and student/personal accounts that are free and they claim are meant for hobbyists. I’ve heard rumbings online about what the dividing line will be between them, so that may be a functional workaround for anybody who doesn’t want to be on Google Play, but I haven’t seen anything specific from Google on it other than “it’s coming”. It does stand out that “I’m an Open Source dev who doesn’t care about Google Play” is not part of the equation here, though, and “I’m F-Droid and I intend to build and verify a TON of apks” is also not accounted for at all.
And of course there now will be a direct paper trail between any signed app and an organization or individual, which is a legal liability issue for a number of app developers. At least on phones. Non-Google certified devices (think Android SBCs and handhelds) should still be able to load unsigned APKs, although those are residual.
I mean, that’s all really bad. Why do we need the hyperbolic “Google is killing Open Source” framing? The real thing is bad enough and it doesn’t make me show up to argue about it. Plus you could have accurately stated “Google kills anonymous apps, threatening alternate app stores” and that would have been 100% accurate and just as horrifying.
No, I’m getting what you’re saying.
I’m saying what you’re saying is wrong because it demands you consider only the statements they are explicitly making and disregard any statements they are not enumerating but that need to be included for it to follow some semblance of logic.
You are arguing that “I believe” has the capacity to contain all the false premises and justify them as long as every action that isn’t belief-based remains internally consistent.
I am saying that… well, no, you need to assess the premises included in that belief to evaluate the entire statement.
“I want to drain the swamp so I vote for Trump because I believe he’ll drain the swamp” or “I want to protect children from pedophiles and I believe Trump will do that” are just as valid of a statement, regardless of whether Trump is a convicted criminal or a sex offender.
As long as you are willing to collapse all incorrect arguments into “belief”, you can justify the logic of any premise at all by just assuming the speaker is incorrect somewhere else that you’re not evaluating. It’s entirely tautological at that point. All human action follows some perceived set of incentives. Not all human action makes sense.
You’re also presuming that the incorrect statements that make sense to you are fixable, which they absolutely are not. None of these people are working down that logic chain that you’re stating. Let me be clear, you won’t convince an antivaxer by changing their factual basis. Their factual basis is built to reach the conclusion they want to reach.
It’s also important to point out that even if that was possible, “we have a population crisis so we need to close the borders” is a contradiction, and it’s exactly what these guys are saying. They aren’t saying “we prefer the effects of the population crisis to the changes to our culture immigration brings”. That’s not the statement in the first place.
The statement is fundamentally incongruous because it’s incomplete and backwards. The real train of thought here is as follows:
“I hate foreigners” “Our population is shrinking” “I miss when women worked for me having babies and cleaning after me” “Foreigners are coming here because our population shrinking creates demand for them” “If women worked for me again having babies and cleaning after me we would be able to grow our population without creating demand for foreigners I hate”
The statement being provided is strategic. They won’t say what they want, they will act to reach it. That includes misrepresenting their argument.
That’s… not how that works when you make statements about the world. Your unicorn example is all well and good in a universe where there are only hypothetical animals, but you’re eliding big chunks of that chain. “Unicorns are pink” is a valid statement in the abstract, but if you’re arguing about animals in the real world that’s not where the chain starts. The chain goes: unicorns exist, unicorns are pink, all pink animals eat clouds.
And of course in this situation you need to evaluate each statement. Unicorns exist is going to be a big fat FALSE, which means you can’t claim all unicorns eat clouds and argue it’s a logical statement. It’s a meaningless statement by itself because it depends on a false assumption.
Which is my exact point. You are claiming the argument is logical because you’re assuming the only requirement is that it is internally consistent when all their premises are accepted. But the premises are false, so it’s not. I appreciate that you’re getting stuck when the chain of statements they cherry pick changes over time (see the free speech example), but they’re not meaningfully different. If you let them cherry pick the clauses they need to verify and ignore everything else they can make a consistent argument in the moment about anything, including vaccines and flat planets and jewish space lasers.
I mean, no they can’t because they suck at this. But still, they can make something close enough to one that if they speak fast and loudly enough on the Internet they can get more morons to follow their channels than to block them, so… here we are, I suppose.
Sure, but that’s taking the concept of what’s “logical” to absurd extremes. Any sort of paranoid delusion is logical if you accept all of its premises.
Is being antivax logical? Not at all. It requires amazing mental gymnastics to ignore centuries of scientific research. Things that are “logical if you believe them” is a great way to describe things that aren’t logical. Vaccines do not, in fact, by all available measures, cause more dangerous issues than the diseases they prevent. If your “logic” requires a rejection of the entire epistemological framework upon which shared scientific kknowledge is established it’s not “logic”, kind of by definition.
This is the same thing. Its internal consistency isn’t “logic”. It can be shown to not be logical. If you suspend yourself from that conversation, deny the parameters of anybody who disagrees with you and cherry pick your values to specifically support your instinctively desired conclusion, then it doesn’t matter how well you can through your train of thought, it’s still indefensible.
I think that’s why the MAGA thing stumps you a bit. Their train of thought isn’t any better or worse than this. It’s, in fact, identical. Information that supports it gets magnified, information that disrupts it is ignored. They are fun about it in that they add this cool temporal dimension, where that selection is applied regardless of how it was applied before, so they’re all for free speech when people tell them to shut up, all for limiting speech when people criticise them. But that’s not different to the fundamental contradiction of being concerned about a population crisis when you are trying to turn women into walking incubators but concerned about the massive influx of people when you’re trying to be racist.
It’s a lot of things, but it’s not logic.
It is only logical if you’re… well, a supremacist.
I mean, it requires a mental framework of how culture and identity work that is fundamentally supremacist.
Culture works by aggregation, it’s entirely unrelated to borders and it is in perpetual shift. This assumption requires misunderstanding culture from a very specific perspective.
So no, not logical.
Internally consistent, yes: make women into reproductive vessels and men into the defenders of a fossilized culture enforced through violence. That’s a consistent worldview.
But not a logical one if you apply it to reality. The difference matters.
I keep hearing racist nationalists say stuff like this worldwide, and not matter how hard I squint it remains a non sequitur.
I mean, “we have a population crisis” and “don’t let people come here” seem entirely contradictory unless you are… well, a supremacist.
Which they are, it’s just the leap that gets me. So obvious, so rarely called out and never addressed.
I can give that a whirl if it’s not set up like that already, but the monitor is VERY slow on its own. It basically never wakes up in time for the BIOS bootscreen and any signal interruption sends it on a wild goose chase of signal searching around its inputs that can take ten seconds at a time. It’s not a cheap monitor, either, which I assume is part of the problem, as it wants to be super smart about a bunch of things and has to contend with a bunch of options and alternatives that maybe a simpler setup wouldn’t.
Still, worth a shot to try to tune grub and double check if it’s swapping modes unnecessarily between the bios image and the menu. I hadn’t considered it. Like so many Linux features and app there’s a bunch of stuff you can config on it that I keep not looking into because it’s only surfaced in documentation, if that.
EDIT: Tried, didn’t help. The motherboard rebooting gives the monitor just enough time to search its display port input, decide it’s been unplugged and shut down, so by the time another monitor picks up the slack it’s too late and the timeout has expired unless you’re mashing down to stop it. The changes do make the second monitor come up at its native resolution instead of changing modes, but the mistake happens elsewhere.
I could just set a longer timeout, but I’d rather have a faster boot when I’m sticking to the default than wait for the whole mess to sort itself out every time. Been mashing bios entry buttons and bootloader menus since the 90s, what’s a couple decades more.
Still dumb, though.
I don’t know about Gentoo, but as a serial dual booter I know this pain well.
I swear about two thirds of the time going through grub on every boot adds to the process are waiting for my monitor to figure itself out. Half the time it doesn’t get there on time at all.
I suppose it makes more sense the less you want to do and the older your hardware is. Even when repurposing old laptops and stuff like that I find the smallest apps I’d want to run were orders of magnitude more costly than any OS overhead. This was even true that one time I got lazy and started running stuff on an older Windows machine without reinstalling the OS, so I’m guessing anything Linux-side would be fine.
After a OS update? I mean, I guess, but most things are going to be in containers anyway, right?
The last update that messed me up on any counts was Python-related and that would have got me on any distro just as well.
Once again, I get it at scale, where you have so much maintenance to manage and want to keep it to a minimum, but for home use it seems to me that being on an LTS/stable update channel would have a much bigger impact than being on a lightweight distro.
I nean… it’s a labelling thing, presumably. They don’t want milk substitutes to be labelled “milk” so they can’t advertise as easily as a milk substitute on supermarket shelves, and presumably the same is true for meat substitutes, except this goes at a glacial pace and they tried and failed in 2020 when it was still relevant and now they’re trying again even though nobody cares about veggie burgers anymore.
You are presuming this sort of arcane manipulation of collective weirdness into multinational legislation follows human logic, and that way lies madness. Best you can do is steer it ever so slightly so it at least does something in the aggregate that stops some anarchocapitalist loon from privatizing oxygen or whatever. It’s been a very weird century.