Rhaedas

Probably trying to mirror Reddit, which had /r/politics for US, and /r/worldnews for everything else. There was a lot of effort (probably wrongly) to try and copy Reddit over instead of finding new ways to do things. /r/worldpolitics was the original sub, but there’s an interesting drama story there.

If Lemmy and other fediverse discussion areas had developed slower and more naturally there might have been more of a country/instance symmetry, but anyone who was around when the Reddit implosion and migration happened knows that it was total chaos and a grab bag of where a new user should sign up. Lemmy and the rest were not ready for such a shift, and now that everyone’s been in a place or two for a while, short of a closure or blocking or whatever there’s no reason to move around to a matching country and instance, if there even is one. People mainly look for popularity, activity, themes, and engagement, and if that’s found on the other side of the globe it works.

It depends. If it’s on the side of the road it may do the opposite and jump in front of you. This one actually looked like it was going to start moving, but not a chance.

It’s the gap between where the deer is in the dark and the car in front that’s odd. Only thing I can figure is the person was in the other lane and darted over just after passing the deer.

Is there a longer video anywhere? Looking closely I have to wonder where the hell did that deer come from? There’s a car up ahead of the Tesla in the same lane, I presume quickly moved back in once it passed the deer? The deer didn’t spook or anything from that car?

This would have been hard for a human driver to avoid hitting, but I know the issue is the right equipment would have been better than human vision, which should be the goal. And it didn’t detect the impact either since it didn’t stop.

But I just think it’s peculiar that that deer just literally popped there without any sign of motion.

That’ll get them. No one under 15 has any idea what a VPN is.

“Are you 15 or more years old? Y/N”

There, that fixed the problem.

Everything is through OneDrive. Even stuff that doesn’t need to be. Desktop shortcuts…really?

Also - I hate Teams, refuse to use it. The one time I did use it for some irrelevant confirmation message, it stuck and now not only does it load every time I log on (to get closed immediately), it also has the history of that one message. That I’ve tried to delete, and it keeps coming back.

Maybe it’s not the right place for it, but the mentions of AI safety and safety in general don’t pertain to the actual definition of AI safety as used in AI research. No mention of alignment parameters that are needed to be held to. This reads as a “we need to be careful who gets access to this” vs. any warning to AI companies on their direction and haste.

Make your own dystopia, Elon. Stop copying people.

Even a hypothetically true artificial general intelligence would still not be a moral agent

That’s a deep rabbit hole that can’t be stated as a known fact. It’s absolutely true right now with LLMs, but at some point the line could be crossed. If and when, how, and by what definition has been a long debate nowhere near resolved.

It’s highly possible that AGI/ASI could come about and be both super intelligent and self conscious and still have no sense of morality. But how can we at human levels even comprehend what’s possible? There’s the real danger, we have no idea what we could be heading towards.

Or the downvotes are coming from the MAGA viewers who are following the video’s directions to prevent its sharing.

🌎👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

I wanted to jump into using Peertube, but unfortunately Youtube grew enormous because it was the only thing at the time. Pulling people from it to other platforms with less viewers and usually no compensation is tough. (although YT compensation as of late is a joke as well)

Thorium was being tested for viability alongside uranium, and got scrapped not because it wasn’t a feasible design, but because it couldn’t produce weapon grade material as a byproduct. Some countries are finally exploring thorium again, hopefully with some success.

Look up NASA’s versions of RTGs. Just because Russia did everything wrong doesn’t make a technology bad, just mishandled.

Of course the market selected renewables as the favored child. “Renewable” and “green” are marketing terms, as is “net zero” and “recycling”. I’m not here with any agenda, I just brought up some points about environmental damage that solar can do on both sides of its existence. I guess I ruffled some feathers.

Did you miss my points about having some of both? Or did you just read the first few lines and rage post? I figured this was a forum where we could discuss the pros and cons of all sides, not just hate on anyone with a differing view.

I’m not comparing them, I’m saying that it’s inaccurate to ignore the effects that solar has.

The chemicals in producing PV panels are toxic. Part of why production got shifted to countries like China is because without regulation on the waste disposal they are so much cheaper to make there. Sucks for the residents, but that’s capitalism.

Energy is used to make PV. True of everything, but when solar is advertised it leans heavy on the free energy that the device generates, not how much it took to make it. But at least that energy can come from solar too…except it comes from fossil fuels.

The heavy metals that make up part of the other 10% are the later waste problem. I don’t know if you can consider those metals inert since they are considered hazardous waste, but they can’t be discounted either. A recycling program to recover everything possible and then controlling the hazardous leftovers would make this less of a point, but we’re not doing that fully yet, so there are things going in the landfills now that could leach into the environment.

All of this can be improved of course. I’m just introducing the fact that solar, like anything we do to keep our society at its level, has drawbacks too.

Nuclear has its problems, as I mentioned. I didn’t pretend that solar is bad and nuclear is all flowers. But the issues it faces are much different and have their own solutions, and nuclear energy density and flexibility is far better than solar ever could be.

I never understand why people pick their sides and then try to make other choices seem like the antithesis to help their cause. Why not find the best solutions for all of the non-fossil fuel sources, and have them all where they make the most sense? Diversity and redundancy is far better than a monopoly won by falsehoods.

Keep in mind that at the core of an LLM is it being a probability autocompletion mechanism using the vast training data is was fed. A fine tuned coding LLM would have data more in line to suit an output of coding solutions. So when you ask for generation of code for very specific purposes, it’s much more likely to find a mesh of matches that will work well most of the time. Be more generic in your request, and you could get all sorts of things, some that even look good at first glance but have flaws that will break them. The LLM doesn’t understand the code it gives you, nor can it reason if it will function.

Think of an analogy where you Googled a coding question and took the first twenty hits, and merged all the results together to give an answer. An LLM does a better job that this, but the idea is similar. If the data it was trained on was flawed from the beginning, such as what some of the hits you might find on Reddit or Stack Overflow, how can it possibly give you perfect results every time? The analogy is also why a much narrow query for coding may work more often - if you Google a niche question you will find more accurate, or at least more relevant results than if you just try a general search and past together anything that looks close.

Basically, if you can help the LLM hone in its probabilities on the better data from the start, you’re more likely to get what may be good code.

Then there’s the waste product to consider.

No, not from nuclear. That’s an issue to be dealt with certainly, but I’m talking about the waste from the production and disposal of solar panels that is ongoing because they don’t last forever.

Quite the opposite, starting in the 1970s. We’d have a lot more nuclear power and less red tape had the petroleum industry and politics not put a scare into the public about the nuclear boogeyman. Your comment above about nuclear bombs is precisely the angle they took, using the tension with Russia as a prop for inaccurate science claims.