They’re not “pushing their Recall shit whether we like it or not”, they’re explicitly making it opt-in. They gave a fuck about their users’ complaints and made a bunch of modifications to it.
You may still not like it, but give them some credit.
Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and then some time on kbin.social.
They’re not “pushing their Recall shit whether we like it or not”, they’re explicitly making it opt-in. They gave a fuck about their users’ complaints and made a bunch of modifications to it.
You may still not like it, but give them some credit.
Some people are so addicted to anger that they’ll shoot themselves in the foot just so they’ll have something to complain about.
“The gimp” is a character from Pulp Fiction. You’re imagining things and refusing to use a powerful tool in response to that imagined slight.
I think it’s generally pointless, spiteful, and only harms ordinary users who might someday have found value in coming across your old posts on Reddit from a search. It doesn’t harm Reddit itself, the “value” of your individual account is very small compared to their vast archive. And they still have it, deletion just removes it from the public-facing front end. If the reason you’re deleting it is because you don’t want AI to be trained on it, that ship has long ago sailed. There are downloadable archives of Reddit floating around that it will never be deleted from.
So I wouldn’t bother.
I should note, there are cryptocurrencies that also don’t use proof of work. Ethereum, the second-largest, switched away from proof of work two and a half years ago.
Not necessarily. Curation can also be done by AIs, at least in part.
As a concrete example, NVIDIA’s Nemotron-4 is a system specifically intended for generating “synthetic” training data for other LLMs. It consists of two separate LLMs; Nemotron-4 Instruct, which generates text, and Nemotron-4 Reward, which evaluates the outputs of Instruct to determine whether they’re good to train on.
Humans can still be in that loop, but they don’t necessarily have to be. And the AI can help them in that role so that it’s not necessarily a huge task.
It means that even if AI is having more environmental impact right now, there’s no reason to say “you can’t improve it that much.” Maybe you can improve it. As I said previously, a lot of research is being done on exactly that - methods to train and run AIs much more cheaply than it has so far. I see developments along those lines being discussed all the time in AI forums such as /r/localllama.
Much like with blockchains, though, it’s really popular to hate AI and “they waste enormous amounts of electricity” is an easy way to justify that. So news of such developments doesn’t spread easily.
Funny you should mention blockchains. Ethereum, the second-largest blockchain after Bitcoin, switched from proof-of-work to a proof-of-stake validation system two and a half years ago. That cut its energy use by 99.95%. The “blockchains are inherently a huge waste of energy” narrative is just firmly lodged in the popular view of them now, though, despite it being long proven false.
A lot of work has been going into making AIs more energy efficient, both in training and in inference stages. Electricity costs money, so obviously everyone’s interested in more efficient AIs. That makes them more profitable.
The term “model collapse” gets brought up frequently to describe this, but it’s commonly very misunderstood. There actually isn’t a fundamental problem with training an AI on data that includes other AI outputs, as long as the training data is well curated to maintain its quality. That needs to be done with non-AI-generated training data already anyway so it’s not really extra effort. The research paper that popularized the term “model collapse” used an unrealistically simplistic approach, it just recycled all of an AI’s output into the training set for subsequent generations of AI without any quality control or additional training data mixed in.
Kids these days don’t learn cursive writing, it’s destroying their literacy!
Apparently, I am. People actually want this
Thank you for recognizing this. It gets quite frustrating in threads like these about new AI tools being deployed when people declare “nobody wants this!” And I try to explain that there are actually people that do want it. I find many AI tools to be quite handy.
I tend to get vigorously downvoted at that point, as if that would make the demand “go away” somehow. But sticking heads in sand doesn’t accomplish anything except to make people increasingly out of touch.
I don’t know what you’re suggesting is going on here, those images you linked don’t work as far as I can tell. Firefox throws a security certificate error. Are you hosting them yourself and collecting IP addresses from people who click on them? If so, that’s not exactly a Lemmy-specific flaw. That’s just basic Internet 101.
We’re back to “privacy is a good thing even if it enables ‘criminals’”? Yesterday there was rather a lot of negativity towards GNU Taler and other means of transferring money privately because it enabled tax evasion and such.
DAI has been around for six and a half years at this point.
How exactly is its “scam” supposed to work?
Here’s DAI’s peg over time. Over the past year it’s had a high point of $1.0012 and a low of $0.9979, neither extreme lasting more than a brief spike. Seems like a pretty good peg to me. The mechanism by which it maintains its peg is complex, but fully transparent since it happens entirely on-chain.
Here’s LUSD, another similarly algorithmically-pegged stabletoken. It’s smaller than DAI so it’s a bit less stable, it had one spike this year where it went all the way up to $1.029. But the mechanism is much simpler so if you’re having trouble understanding DAI it might be an easier place to start.
No, I am rejecting the notion of stable coins, which are by their own definition literal scams.
By what definition is that?
So basically you only “believe in” off-chain assets? That’s fine, but it kind of removes you from any discussion of the details of blockchains. You’ve rejected their entire premise so why bother?
All you’re saying here is “nuh-uh! I don’t believe you!” Which isn’t particularly useful.
I could dig up the addresses of MakerDAO or Liquity vaults, you could examine them directly using Etherscan and see which tokens back them. But I somehow get the impression that that would be a waste of my time. Is there literally anything that could convince you, before I go running around doing any further work trying?
You can examine the MakerDAO contract, for example, and see all of the assets they claim to have sitting right there under its control on the blockchain. You can see the contract logic behind how those assets enter and exit its control.
No, it’s opt-in. If you do nothing you won’t have it.