JohnFen

3 ms·

1.
by JohnFen 5d ago
It looks like you have a new account and your only posts and comments are about promoting your project. Self-promotion is tolerated to a degree, but shouldn't be the primary or only thing you do here.
2.
by JohnFen 7d ago
> which is as immoral as it gets. I can easily think of a ton of things that are far more immoral than that. > This is behavior worse than that of rabid animals. It should be treated accordingly. Somehow, I can't agree that some
3.
by JohnFen 7d ago
Rapid release cadences are a real pain in the butt that I prefer to avoid. It's good that we both have options to meet our respective needs.
4.
by JohnFen 8d ago
As someone who thinks that genAI is harmful, I deeply resent that any of my work has been used to help train it. I will never forgive these companies for forcing me to contribute.
5.
by JohnFen 9d ago
Yes, it's a completely misleading, clickbait title. Most physicists do, in fact, agree on the overwhelming majority of things. That article is just a list of a few things that there isn't yet a consensus on.
6.
by JohnFen 9d ago
We can only address those things in our power to address.
7.
by JohnFen 9d ago
> That can be said for both directions Huh? In what way? My desire to avoid being spied on does not impinge on anyone else's privacy. > What really seems to be happening is people extrapolating a few bad apples into the default.
8.
by JohnFen 9d ago
There's zero chance I'd ever tip a robot, so nobody would get mine. > When you tip a worker in the US, the law says companies, owners and supervisors cannot take a cut. Except that's not really the case. The cut is already
9.
by JohnFen 9d ago
> On the flip side, with smart glasses, others cannot look over your shoulder at your text messages. There are areas where privacy increases So, privacy for thee but not for me? This is what makes these sorts of devices so objectionable.
10.
by JohnFen 9d ago
> Touchscreen kiosks, self-checkout machines and QR-code menus were only here to help. They are there to help the businesses, not the customers.
11.
by JohnFen 9d ago
No problem. I wouldn't own property that was under an HOA in the first place.
12.
by JohnFen 9d ago
I can destroy anything that I own. So can they. They're despicable for doing this, but there's nothing remotely illegal about it. Not everything bad should be illegal, because sometimes outlawing a thing can have greater adverse c
13.
by JohnFen 9d ago
I'm not ignoring those risks at all. I'm just saying I don't see any reason to think that those risks include some sort of extinction-level event or "robot uprising". For the record, I actually think that genAI (at
14.
by JohnFen 9d ago
If something of mine breaks and I can't fix it, or at least get someone else to fix it, the act of replacing it always feels like a defeat to me.
15.
by JohnFen 10d ago
genAI companies have, I believe, ill intent for us all. They are concerned with amassing wealth and power for themselves at the expense of ourselves and society. They are immoral. genAI is a tool without any intention. It is amoral. I'
16.
by JohnFen 10d ago
I used to think similarly, that I wanted one computer in a phone form factor. I've since changed my mind and don't want one computer at all. I want lots of them, each as isolated as possible and doing a particular task.
17.
by JohnFen 10d ago
> The US never became the world's superpower because it did anything "moral" or had "character" or anything remotely like that. I never asserted, nor do I believe, that it did.
18.
by JohnFen 10d ago
The bestiality thing is just utterly bizarre and inexplicable. Their attempted explanation and defense of it is even more bizarre. But, honestly, the bestiality part isn't what concerns me the most. What concerns me more is accepting a
19.
by JohnFen 10d ago
No, I don't buy into that at all. I think that the genAI companies themselves present a greater danger to us (arguably not an existential danger, though) than genAI itself.
20.
by JohnFen 10d ago
It will take generations, if it's even possible, for the US to recover its standing in the eyes of the world, and that standing was the core of our power. "Fixing ourselves" is critical, but just the first step. There's
21.
by JohnFen 10d ago
Just the fact that they're generating images of fictional food rather than taking pictures of the food they actually make shows that the restaurant has no taste or care, or has a reason to hide their cooking.
22.
by JohnFen 10d ago
Not infinite, obviously, but yes -- complex software will effectively always have additional vulnerabilities. It's a bit like how it's impossible to have a nontrivial logic system that is both complete and correct. It's a cor
23.
by JohnFen 10d ago
I don't know. It seems to me that if genAI invents it, it's not a human language. At least not unless people start using it for real and introduce the inevitable human changes and touches over time.
24.
by JohnFen 10d ago
A digital electronics design course I took at the local science museum when I was 11. It was free, so what the heck, I took it on a whim. I didn't know it at the time, but it set the course of my career for the rest of my life even tho
25.
by JohnFen 10d ago
Personally, no. The existence of genAI has zero impact on that for me. It's simple to ignore it entirely.
26.
by JohnFen 10d ago
AI firms have given us every reason to distrust them. Particularly Altman and OpenAI.
27.
by JohnFen 11d ago
Yes, that as well. It's best to have a multilayered approach to this.
28.
by JohnFen 11d ago
Allowing everything doesn't make these work for me. Not a huge problem, really, I am just confused as to what the point of them is.
29.
by JohnFen 11d ago
Sounds like a great reason to put a fence around your property. This nonsense is getting insane.
30.
by JohnFen 11d ago
Do those links ever actually work (as in, allow people to read the article, not as in resolving)? I've never seen one here that does, including this one.

More ›