ALostInquirer

Thanks! I hadn't heard of this before, hydrogen fueled cars, sure, but not this. 😄

All that aside, the point is that people talking about how it’s not “real AI” often come across as people who don’t know what they’re talking about, which was the point of the image.

The funny part is, as I mention in my comment, isn't that how both parties to these conversations feel? The problem is they're talking past each other, but the worst part is, arguably the more educated participant should be more apt to recognize this and clarify or better yet, ask for clarification so they can see where the disconnect is emerging to improve communication.

Also, let's remember that it's not the laypeople describing the technology in general personified terms like "learning" or "hallucinating", which furthers some of the grumbling.

Microsoft fucking sucks, but I want people to know ways around stuff so they aren’t wasting time and money if they don’t have to.

What is the way around Microsoft accounts during 10/11 setup?

Which is a fair point, because AI has never meant “general AI”, it’s an umbrella term for a wide variety of intelligence like tasks as performed by computers.

Do you mean in the everyday sense or the academic sense? I think this is why there's such grumbling around the topic. Academically speaking that may be correct, but I think for the general public, AI has been more muddled and presented in a much more robust, general AI way, especially in fiction. Look at any number of scifi movies featuring forms of AI, whether it's the movie literally named AI or Terminator or Blade Runner or more recently Ex Machina.

Each of these technically may be presenting general AI, but for the public, it's just AI. In a weird way, this discussion is sort of an inversion of what one usually sees between academics and the public. Generally academics are trying to get the public not to use technical terms loosely, yet here some of the public is trying to get some of the tech/academic sphere to not, at least as they think, use technical terms loosely.

Arguably it's from a misunderstanding, but if anyone should understand the dynamics of language, you'd hope it would be those trying to calibrate machines to process language.

HHO generators

...What are these? Something to do with hydrogen? Despite it not making sense for you to write it that way if you meant H2O, I really enjoy the silly idea of a water generator (as in, making water, not running off water).

As an analogy, you can try taking a selfie using an old laptop’s front-facing camera. You probably won’t like how you look either - you’d look either sickly pale or drunken red, eyebags appear out of nowhere, the distortion of the lens makes you look fat. All of these qualities aren’t because you are any of these things in real life. It’s simply that laptop cameras are bad. Same is true for microphones and speakers.

I think you make a good point with the hardware aspects of this, and on this last point I can't help but be a little amused, as while it's often very true, personally I sometimes prefer the lower res quality of a laptop camera as it can help obfuscate some of the finer details I don't much care for. It's basically a hardware lo-fi filter, and I appreciate it not catching every pore. 😂

I suspect this is basically it, however I've often thought similar could be said of one's appearance; as it's distorted by different lighting, whether your clothing's gotten wrinkled up a certain way, the wind's messed up your hair, or you accidentally smudged makeup or some dirt on you somewhere. Although that all is also typically easier to adjust (give or take the lighting and wind) than your voice, so that undoubtedly plays into it.

Would you happen to mean readers with filtering tools? If so I'm interested as well.

I know Thunderbird technically has them, but I've had trouble making them work as effectively as I'd like. RSSOwl had some that were easier to work with, but stopped being updated. There's now a fork of it called RSSOwlnix, but I haven't taken the time to see whether it still works as well or not. May be worth looking into though...

I think this is all pretty good advice, thanks!

However, this & the other replies, have made me realize I should have taken more time with the body text of this question. What I was a little more interested in was less the one-on-one interactions, and more something like..."How might one co-opt bad faith methods to spread helpful, good information?"

It's so easy to to toss out bad, harmful information, but might there be some ways to more easily put out good, helpful information that sticks with people? Or at a minimum, more benign info that doesn't gradually push people down darker paths? 🤔

I follow ya. I feel like busywork is probably one of the better words to describe what many in antiwork communities are getting at. Unfulfilling, often for someone else and to their greater profit/benefit over yours and others' own with seemingly no other purpose than that.

In a lot of ways it's a more familiar way of talking about alienated labor without putting people off.

As a lil' heads up, this post is from an antiwork community. That aside, which kind of work are you getting fulfillment from? Another comment here makes a good point that these terms are sort of loaded with different meanings for each of us.

Personally I don't find much of my work satisfying because I find it difficult to keep it from helping big businesses in some way.

I see where you're coming from, I think. In my experiences with trying to follow tutorials though, I've found the difficulty to be between rough explanations and the examples given feeling a little too simple and isolated from how they might be applied in a working program.