Are you speaking legally or morally when you say someone “aught” to do something?

Yeah I read that but I don’t have the knowledge to say “what a rookie mistake” or “in hindsight that was a bad idea”. I take it, it’s the former?

I’m not a cybersecurity expert. Did they make a foolish decision that would warrant a lack of trust, or were they just unlucky?

This is probably right. LLMs can be used as a replacement for people (well, almost), or it can be used as a tool for people. Where that line is will be crucial.

I also don’t think it’s the same kind of “”“AI”“” as the kind that would be used to recreate a person’s likeness. That’s almost certainly going to be covered under copyright. (I bring this up because the article mentions it).

And even if there somehow is no line and any script written even partially by an AI cannot be copyrighted (unlikely I think) then the resulting film is still eligible for copyright protections.

I’m not sure your second point is as strong as you believe it to be. Do you have a specific example in mind? I think most vehicle problems that would require an emergency responder will have easy access to a tow service to deal with the car with or without a human being involved. It’s not like just because a human is there that the problem is more easily solved. For minor-to-moderate accidents that just require a police report, things might get messy but that’s an issue with the law, not necessarily something inherently wrong with the concept of self driving vehicles.

Also, your first point is on shaky ground, I think. I don’t know why the metric is accidents with fatalities, but since that’s what you used, what do you think having fewer humans involved does to the chance of killing a human?

I’m all for numbers being crunched, and to be clear (as you were, I think) the numbers are the real deciding metrics here, not thought experiments.

And I think it’s 100% true that autonomous transportation doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than humans. Not that you disagree with this, but it is probably what people are thinking when they say “humans do this too”.

Oh, that must be new. I only had three tabs, one for my stuff, one for all the local stuff, and one for everything.

There were recommended posts and stuff but they were kind of buried in some menus.

Sounds like stuff has changed. It’s only been a few months. I’ll stop saying there’s no algorithm now, haha.

This does make more sense.

I think “for you” is just everything you follow (people and topics).

On Mastodon? I distinctly recall reading that it did not have one but I guess these projects are fast moving so maybe it has changed or I am just mistaken.

I found it very refreshing that it doesn’t have an algorithm at all. I know there are some downsides to that, but I think they’re worth it.

This is how I mainly used Mastodon before Lemmy. It lets you follow topics instead of people; I prefer finding content this way. Unless a person really likes the format of Mastodon better, I’d suggest Lemmy over Mastodon for people that would rather follow topics than individuals.

You consider DLC a microtransaction?

Edit: Maybe I’m just too old, but I thought microtransactions were something you get prompted to purchase while playing the game. Is that no longer the case?

Right. The problem with SO is that you don’t actually get to ask any questions; so reason would suggest anything is at least as good as SO-- even asking a house plant, or Siri, or whatever. Something that actually answers your question would obviously be a better option.

Stack Overflow brought their irrelevance on themselves, I suspect.

A caveat: This user analysis involved just 12 programmers being asked to assess if they prefer the responses of ChatGPT or those written by humans on Stack Overflow to 2,000 randomly sampled questions.

Nothing to see here.

I do wonder though if we’ll see changes made to the cancellation policies. I’ve certainly been expecting a change there for years.

What kind of changes to the cancellation policies are you imagining?