hendrik

Good question. I don't know when Lemmy got the feature that mods can see all votes, but looks to me someone is agitated/frustrated or something and goes through the logs. We had some discussion back then about people doing their thing in their communities and then some random people aren't even subscribed and do drive-by downvotes... Which is a bit frustrating. And AI is one of the many polarizing topics here. People tried discussing it in peace but it's not very easy. Maybe OP got caught in the turmoil of this. Or they pissed off that person and then the next downvote was one too many... I don't really know. And the person calling out people by name sounds a bit agitated. I'd say someone with that state of mind is likely going to react a bit more extreme. And they're concerned with voting fraud and brigading in general.

Ah right, maybe that was it. I remember seeing the post as well. You got "called out" by name publicly. For supposed "brigading". And told to F off. That must be the reason for this?! https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/34853477

How can you tell what you downvoted while randomly scrolling through the all feed or your subscriptions 3 months ago? I certainly couldn't remember.

And the communities you were banned from aren't necessarily the ones you downvoted in... That's just the realm of the admin or mod who banned you. But they could have based the decision on other behaviour or downvotes of yours.

You're a bit more easygoing with the downvotes than the average Lemmy user. Those rarely downvote, while you do like 30% downvotes. Maybe that triggered someone if you did something like scroll through a community and hand out several downvotes consecutively. But I don't think you're doing anything wrong here.

Hmm... Would be interesting to find out what kind of effect that has on the average marriage or relationship 😅

Likely everyday stuff... Meeting minutes, phone or video conferences and such...

I think a dual-channel system with DDR3-1600 isn't what we call fast any more. So you should try to avoid offloading with that. But I'm not an expert on the numbers, and it depends a bit on the specific use-case whether it makes sense to invest in old hardware, or buy a new machine along with a graphics card, since that's quite some money.

Right. I'm not sure if I even disagree with that. I completely agree the manufacturer is responsible for their products. And we definitely need guardrails and regulations in place. I'd go even further than current lawmakers and mandate watermarking etc for AI services. And content filters for example for this specific case. I've already reported face-swapping services which violate law (sadly nothing ever came of it).

My main point is: It's very important to get it right. I've linked the best blog article I know about the subject in my first comment. Addressing it by removing open-source is (in my opinion) not going to help much, and it makes the overall situation with AI severely worse.

I can't come up with good analogies here. But I think the solution has to be to address the specific issues and make the tools more safe. Not turn them into a plaything for certain people only. That's likely going to have the opposite effect. And it might not stop the criminals either, depending on how it's done.

I mean a car manufacturer also shouldn't stop you from being able to replace the light bulbs or learn how a car works, just because someone used a car in a crime once. And we don't remove the knifes from my kitchen and replace that with pre-sliced food from the grocery store, so only big companies have knifes available... Or outlaw personal websites and user generated content, so only trusted companies can upload stuff to the internet. Or outlaw Linux so Microsoft and Google/Apple spying is on all our devices. I think it's just not the right means to address the issue... Sure we could do it this way, but that's mainly harming regular people even more.

But I really don't think these are opposites. We still can address issues. (And we should!) It just has to be a sane approach that doesn't do the opposite of what it's trying to do.

Edit: I think what this does is make the robot apocalypse (if we ever get to that) be shaped by Sam Altman and what he likes. We just reinforce Skynet (from Terminator) with that. Plus today people are going to use it, and it'll have the biases and stereotypes that Elon Musk etc like in the answers. And they're going to change the world with their propaganda and perspective. As long as AI is disruptive and has an impact on society, that's really, really bad. And we're stripping anyone else of any capability to take part in it or shape it differently. Or do research that contradicts their bussiness motivations.

Yes. I think it's kind of a non sequitur argument. We also regularly don't ban the internet, knifes or an axe or cars - on the basis that they are misused by some people. It either needs a different conclusion that addresses the misuse. Or we need a different argument to prohibit something in general. But this way it's just a fallacy. And the obvious (false) conclusion (without taking it away from companies as well) will be harmful to everyone. So out of all the possibilities to address the problem, please don't do that.

This definitely has some "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?" vibes to it. But the article says it's a "multifaceted" issue and they give some more details.

Please excuse my a bit more nuanced opinion here, since this might not be the right community for it.

Eric Hartford wrote a good blog article on this very issue.

Main question is, do we want AI to be shaped intransparently by big corporations, and have them shape society and us however they like? Or do "the people" take part in this?

And same argument can be applied to other tech as well: "Linux should be illegal because people can use it to hack computers and send spam." Or the entire internet can be used as a tool for criminal activities. What does that tell us about the internet? This in itself isn't very straightforward in my opinion. It needs to be factored in and regulated. But it's not the same question as should we have AI be part of the world. And outlawing people to take part in this, while other entities can do it, comes with severe implications.

I heard re-orienting after retirement isn't always easy. I know people who did extracurricular activities or volunteer work after that. Like music teachers continuing with the orchestra or language teachers teaching refugee kids... Or they're just happy they're not part of the daily grind any more. Whatever floats your boat. I wish you can find something that makes you happy. I mean educating people should be appreciated and there is demand for that. Inside of school and aside from school itself.

I have some teacher friends. Maybe I should ask them about AI and their co-workers. And gather some anecdotal evidence myself. I had assumed it's far from being a majority of teachers who use AI. But that's just what I got from our conversations.

I'm also one of the people who rarely has any issues with the connectors themselves. It's always the cable which breaks close to the jack, not the connector. Also sits super tight in my phone that's half a decade old... I've destroyed usb-c connectors though, by accident and with some force involved. And the cables have different quality, yes. Some are fine for many years, some are cheap e-waste.

I mean they probably don't have any long protrusions or snap-in mechanisms, because today's phones are very slim and other gadgets are tiny as well, so you can't have a large connector with robust snap-in mechanisms. (And those tend to break as well, especially if they're flimsy like the ones on network cables.)