They’re functionalities that were not made with traditional programming paradigms, but rather by modeling and training the model to fit it to the desired behaviour, making it able to adapt to new situations; the same basic techniques that were used to make LLMs. You can argue that it’s not “artificial intelligence” because it’s not sentient or whatever, but then AI doesn’t exist and people are complaining that something that doesn’t exist is useless.

Or you can just throw statements with no arguments under some personal secret definition, but that’s not a very constructive contribution to anything.

What?

If you ever used online translators like google translate or deepl, that was using AI. Most email providers use AI for spam detection. A lot of cameras use AI to set parameters or improve/denoise images. Cars with certain levels of automation often use AI.

That’s for everyday uses, AI is used all the time in fields like astronomy and medicine, and even in mathematics for assistance in writing proofs.

I know that there is a number that’s visible on kbin called “reputation”, I think it works like karma, but I’m not sure. Yours is 2286: https://kbin.earth/u/@[email protected]/reputation/threads

This is actually a tactic Antoine-Augustin Parmentier used to popularize potatoes in France. He couldn’t get people to accept potatoes, so he placed armed guards to protect the plants, and withdrew them at a certain point in the day so that people could steal them.

Just finished watching it, and honestly that’s the idea I got after those red flags that jumpscared me when I was watching that linux sucks video. I think I watched them up until 2018, and I remember finding them entertaining and they always ended on a postive note, but I knew absolutely nothing about Lunduke apart from those 4 or 5 videos, that’s why I was so shocked to find out that he’s a generic right wing parrot.

As a sidenote, Niccolò seems like a really cool guy. Thanks for sharing the video, I subbed

I really liked his “Linux sucks” presentations when I watched them many years ago, but I didn’t know anything about him beyond that. Then some time last year I saw that he made another one, and I decided to watch it mainly for nostalgia, and I was shocked to see so many points about how linux companies are woke, something about opensuse firing anyone who was right-wing and redhat doing some white shaming move or something. I paused, checked his actual channel and holy shit. More than 90% was anti-woke “journalism”, and has been for years now. I was severely disappointed.

lol, actually, good science would be on the left side of the image, at least after giving an answer to a question. Good science will actually prove something, then give the answer, then have no reason to continue to find another answer for it (whatever the issue is.) If you are giving a different answer year after year (like say for the age of the earth), then aren’t you admitting that so far you haven’t known the answer?

That’s not really the take of the modern philosophy of science. All modern schools of thought when it comes to science have the acceptance of falsehoods embedded into their nodels. I’ll give a few examples:

Karl Popper famously stated that science cannot prove that anything is true, only that something is false. Thus, any scientific theory that’s still accepted is regarded as not yet being proven wrong. Science is just a cycle of giving theories, proving them wrong, giving new ones to account for the problem of the old one and so on, ever getting closer to the truth, but never arriving.

Thomas Kuhn wrote about scientific paradigms, which are models of the field in question that every scientist uses (for example Aristotelian motion, which was surpassed by Newtonian mechanics, which were surpassed by Einstein’s relativity). During the period of “normal science”, scientists are using their established methods until they end up with too many problems they cannot resolve, at which point it is accepted that the paradigm cannot hold up, and a scientific revolution needs to bring forth a new paradigm, that is incomparable with the old one. Some knowledge is lost in this process, but we move on until the next crisis.

Paul Feyerabend wrote about countet-induction, which prevents science becoming a dogma. An example he gives is Copernicus going completely against the science of his time with his heliocentric system. The Ptolemaic system was as cutting edge science back then as quantum mechanics is today.

All in all, findings being continuously disproven and replaced by new ones is not bad science, it is science. Achieving actual, “true”, positive knowledge of the world, documenting it and saying “that’s it, we solved this problem, we’re done” is not something modern science event attempts at.

I remember seeing to mod in the post commenting on someone’s mention of North Korea. First he posted an image detailing the deaths caused by the US and South Korea during the Korean war, and that was it, no mention about NK specifically. Later he said that there was no proof that NK is brutally repressing its citizens. Then when someone said how everyone who fled NK said so, he said how they only do it for the shock value to get stories out and make money out of that, or something like that.

Basically people like that find anything anti-US as good, and if you say anything bad about those countries, they’ll ask for proof and then call whatever you provide fake.

It’s great how they stressed in the video that the transition to green energy did not come at a cost of economic growth.

Seriously, I never would’ve guessed that my most unpopular opinion on lemmy would be “murdering people vaguely connected to your problem because you’re angry is bad”.

This wasn’t an ideological act or whatever, the assassin’s mother was brainwashed and financially ruined her family, he was angry because of that (so because the church caused his mother to ruin the family, it’s a personal grudge against the church because it affected him), wanted to kill the head of the church, but couldn’t, so 20 years later he settled for Abe since he was accessible and supported the church (as the party did before him).

The assassin could’ve exposed and drew attention to the church and their connections in various ways, instead he shot an old man at the end of his career. I am all for exposing corruption and malpractices, for taking away influence and power from those who have too much, but arbitrary killing is disgusting. Shall we applaud every broken and desperate murderer if the target they could get their hands on was bad enough by some criteria of the day? I hope this is people just trying to be edgy.

Because the political violence mentioned in the title is murder. The title is “murder works and is good sometimes actually”. And the ‘sometimes’ mentioned here is when a man held a grudge against the Unification Church, couldn’t find a chance to kill high ranking members of the church and then decided to kill the former PM because he had connections to it and was easy enough to find.

This is not okay, and very far from “good”.