VerbFlow

What should we do after Harris/Walz is elected? I was wondering if you had some ideas. Here are mine:

• Mass strikes in the workplace, demands being taxes for the rich and higher wages
• Mass strikes in the military, demands being to end support for Israel, take away excessive military bases, shut down Gitmo, drastically reduce the budget, &c
• Get as many people off the internet as possible
• Get people arms and arms training so they can defend themselves without police, and heavily reduce police funding
• Refuse to pay any landlords, lead attacks on real estate offices

Maybe some stuff would be extreme, but I ask you please to separate the wheat from the chaff, along with adding your own material. I may not be that smart, but at least I'm preparing.

(If you want to remember to vote, set yourself a timer like everyone else with memory issues. It should go ding on the day you get your ballot!)

I also feel kinda hazy

I'm not saying that freedom of speech IS a bad idea, or that the government should simply censor ideas that are harmful, but the idea to just silence people for misinformation seems to be gaining traction.

To be clear: I am NOT pointing fingers and accusing any political party (including the D-Party) of being censorious, or accusing censorship and its proponents as malicious, nor saying there is a conspiracy out to promote censorship. It simply seems that, due to a surge in right-wing terror attacks and the Capitol riots, people have become more accepting of censorship, from Popper's "intolerance of tolerance" to laws against homophobia and conspiracy theories, in search of a comfortable, safe state of society.

I also want to ask how censorship would be enforced. How would riots be dealt with? How would the police be handled? How would jails be prevented from overloading?

Also, this question is not directed at Anarchists. Some leftists don't like censorship, and others do, and I want to ask those that do.

If this question is stupid, tell me why. I may end up seeing myself that this question is stupid, and if so, I'll tell you.

I downscaled it this time.

I know this sounds pretentious (which is quite ironic), but this is something I've noticed about the internet. You never read about what someone does, only what they say. You hear politicians claim that they'll fix the economy, or celebrities make speeches about what they feel like, or what "message" a fictional movie has being discussed over and over, but none of that matters, because it's all saying and no doing!

I made this myself on GIMP with some wallpaper

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/19178497

RAND Report - The Root Causes of Failure for Artificial Intelligence Projects and How They Can Succeed

I recieved a comment from someone telling me that one of my posts had bad definitions, and he was right. Despite the massive problems caused by AI, it's important to specify what an AI does, how it is used, for what reason, and what type of people use it. I suppose judges might already be doing this, but regardless, an AI used by one dude for personal entertainment is different than a program used by a megacorporation to replace human workers, and must be judged differently. Here, then, are some specifications. If these are still too vague, please help with them.

a. What does the AI do?

1. It takes in a dataset of images, specified by a prompt, and compiles them into a single image thru programming (like StaDiff, Dall-E, &c);
2. It takes in a dataset of text, specified by a prompt, and compiles that into a single string of text (like ChatGPT, Gemini, &c);
3. It takes in a dataset of sound samples, specified by a prompt, and compiles that into a single sound (like AIVA, MuseNet, &c).

b. What is the AI used for?

1. It is used for drollery (applicable to a1 and a2);
2. It is used for pornography (a1);
3. It is used to replace stock images (a1);
4. It is used to write apologies (a2);
5. It is used to write scientific papers (this actually happened. a2);
6. It is used to replace illustration that the user would've done themselves (a1);
7. It is used to replace illustration by a wage-laborer (a1);
8. It is used to write physical books to print out (a2);
9. It is used to mock and degrade persons (a1, a3);
10. It is used to mock and degrade persons sexually (a1, a3);
11. It is used for propaganda (a1, a2, a3).

c. Who is using the AI?

1. A lower-class to middle-class person;
2. An upper-class person;
3. A small business;
4. A large business;
5. An anonymous person;
6. An organization dedicated to shifting public perception.

This was really tough to do. I'll see if I can touch up on it myself. As of now, Lemmy cannot do lists in lists.

I was originally going to put this into the Log, but it might be unwelcome.

You want a way to rattle image-generation Boosters? Most of the arguments they use can be used to defend Googling an image and putting a filter over it.

• "All forms of media take inspiration from one another, so that means it's fine to Google another image, download it, and apply a filter to call it mine!"
• "Artists are really privilieged, so it's morally OK to take their art and filter it!"
• "Using filtered images I downloaded from Google for game sprites will help me finish my game faster!"
• "I suck at drawing, so I have to resort to taking images from people who can draw and filtering them!"
• "People saying that my filtered images aren't art are tyrannical! I deserve to have my filtered images be seen as equal to hand-drawn ones!"

AI Boosters use a standard motte-and-bailey doctrine to assert the right to steal art and put it into a dataset, yet entice people to buy their generated images. When Boosters want people to invest in AI, they occupy the bailey and say that "AI is faster and better than drawing by hand". When Boosters are confronted with their ethical problems, as shown above, they retreat into the motte and complain that "it takes tons of time and work to make the AI do what I want". Remember this when you find Boosters. Or don't, since I doubt the sites where they lurk are worth your time.

First of all, this c has absolutely skyrocketed in the coming years. I made it in a panic. (I was worried that AI would bedazzle everyone, everyone would be onboard, and it would ruin everything forever.) Although a lot of what I feared didn't happen, I'm still glad to have made this thing.

I don't know if this sub is going to be brigaded by Boosters like it was early on, or if they'll try some sort of cyberattack, but the reason I appointed so many moderators was because I was worried that Boosters would come in, try some bad-faith tactics, and screw over any resistance against AI.

I now realize that having a pro-AI "camp" is misleading. Adopting any new technology must prove itself to be worth its cost. There have been patents, like Flexplay, or Tetraethyllead, that are not worth their cost. What Boosters are saying is that, if you oppose the use of Flexplay of Tetraethyllead, you are in an "anti-Flexplay" or "anti-Tetraethyllead" camp, and if you can't come up with a convincing argument against it, you should just accept the technology.

Since it's been a while since my last log, and the c has changed, I don't think this will be brigaded.

It's really cool seeing all this old stuff. These are still downloadable, by the way.