FaceDeer

And yet I don’t see any of that. Lots of people complain about “the algorithm” but it seems to be working well for me.

Trump, personally?

He has never been loved. He desperately wants to be loved. But he has absolutely no idea what that means, and so nothing he does is working or can ever work. He thinks adulation from adoring fans is love. He thinks money is love. He thinks being powerful means people will love him, and that hurting other people makes him powerful. The “there are only winners and losers in life and to be a winner you need to make other people losers” thing he learned from his terrible father.

But since none of that is true he’s got a gaping black hole inside him that never gets filled no matter how much he tries to cram these things into it.

If he were younger I’d have some vague slight hope that he might someday be able to recover from this. But it’s far too late now, he’s a broken husk of a human being that does nothing but hurt everyone around him. I hope he dies immediately, if not sooner.

Ixnay on the roboscispay in front of the umanshay!

I think the Internet is still a good thing, it’s just become so pervasive and ubiquitous that it’s easy to ignore when it’s not a bad thing. Humans are really good at noticing bad things, which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. They stand out more starkly against a neutral background.

You can use mbin if you want out of the Lemmy codebase, it’s a separate codebase that does the same thing.

I mean, it’s pretty obvious. They release good open-weight models. Western companies did that a little at first, but they’ve basically stopped doing that any more. It’s really easy to win a competition when one of the competitors isn’t actually competing.

It’s important to say the “20” prefix so that viewers will know that we’re set in “the future.”

I don’t know how you’re measuring efficiency, but a heat pump with greater than 100% efficiency lets you build a perpetual motion machine. That’s not possible.

There are some cities that do things a third way; they have a centralized facility that burns the gas (or other fuels) to generate electricity, and then also pipe the heat out to the city in the form of heated water or steam running through insulated underground pipes. Buildings tap into those pipes and run it through radiators. That has the potential to be even more efficient because you’re using what would otherwise be “waste” heat, but it depends on a relatively compact city to avoid losing too much heat while sending it through the pipes. I understand this is not uncommon in Eastern European and Russian cities. I’m not familiar with the details, though, so if you want to know more about this I’d recommend Googling around a bit.

Oh, probably because it’s cheaper and more efficient.

If you wanted to use the gas in a gas power plant to produce electricity to run an electric heater, there’s a bunch of steps where energy gets lost. The turbine and generator isn’t 100% efficient and the transformers and transmission wires lose energy along the way to your house. Whereas burning something directly for heat is nearly 100% efficient, the only waste is whatever heat gets carried away by the exhaust. Which isn’t much with a modern high-efficiency furnace. I’ve got one of those and every once in a while I knock icicles off of the exhaust vent outside when I pass it. They use countercurrent exchange to keep all the heat inside the house.

Yet, exceedingly rare to see fires from this

You just answered your own question. The techniques for running gas lines into houses and hooking them up to furnaces are very refined at this point, it can be done safely.

Ah, good, that makes this less of a dilemma then.

On the one hand not fond of the CCP, and this is a step toward making Taiwan more “safely” invadeable.

On the other hand not fond of the United States throwing its weight around like it’s in charge of the world and not fond of monopolies in general.

So hard to settle on a reaction for this.

They’re doing what the “contract” always allowed.

It is interesting, IMO, that with AI we see the opposite of the usual trend; the fancy new disruptive technology seems to be liked more by the older crowd, and less by the younger ones.

Right, you take the article at face value. So exactly as I originally said:

you sure are relying on just believing whatever you read without any checking whatsoever.

For every news article you read?

That’s the point here. AI can allow for tedious tasks to be automated. I could have a button in my browser that, when clicked, tells the AI to follow up on those sources to confirm that they say what the article says they say. It can highlight the ones that don’t. It can add notes mentioning if those sources happen to be inherently questionable - environmental projections from a fossil fuel think tank, for example. It can highlight claims that don’t have a source, and can do a web search to try to find them.

These are all things I can do myself by hand, sure. I do that sometimes when an article seems particularly important or questionable. It takes a lot of time and effort, though. I would much rather have an AI do the grunt work of going through all that and highlighting problem areas for me to potentially check up on myself. Even if it makes mistakes sometimes that’s still going to give me a far more thoroughly checked and vetted view of the news than the existing process.

Did you look at the link I gave you about how this sort of automated fact-checking has worked out on Wikipedia? Or was it too much hassle to follow the link manually, read through it, and verify whether it actually supported or detracted from my argument?

Okay, we’ve established how you don’t do it. So how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?

30 % increase in preformance? or “we WOn’T nEEd progRAmMers iN 3 yEars”?

You think people aren’t going to want to use AI unless it does literally everything for them? That’s exactly the “if something’s not perfect then it must be awful” mindset I was criticizing in the comment you’re responding to.

I don’t see a link to that research, but that means 38% don’t believe AI is significantly overhyped.

If my job depends on saying you are correct… Mr. FaceDeer you are always correct, the most correct ever.

You are now arguing that the source that you yourself brought into this discussion is no good.

This is ridiculous.

Okay, so how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?