Depends on your exact question. I still have some analog phones around. But they’re connected via an VOIP adapter. And I suppose most calls are converted to internet protocol somewhere on the way anyways. I don’t think there are many analog lines and interchanges through the country anymore that’d connect you directly (without conversion) to your grandma.

Wüsste jetzt nicht warum der Besitz einer Domain einen Betrieb besser macht. Ich wäre glücklich wenn ein Arzt oder Anwalt ihre/seine Zeit inverstiert in fachliche Weiterbildung und sowas anstatt in den Betrieb von IT-Infrastruktur.

Und so wirklich Sicherheit bringt es mir auch nicht. Jeder inklusive Halunken kann ein paar Euro im Monat für eine Domain ausgeben.

Hotmail, gmx/web.de, gmail finde ich jetzt auch wenig professionell. Oder etwas anderes werbefinanziertes. Aber wenn da mailbox.org oder posteo oder protonmail etc steht, geht das für mich voll okay.

Because you could use your time to work and make money. Labor is kind of selling your time to other entities and doing their stuff. And even an enterpreneur can use time to grow their business. Or capital alone regularly grows with interest or by investing it.

You could also use your time to make waffles. That’d be oddly specific, but even then you could sell those and you’d end up with money again… And exposing waffles to time just results in them growing mold.

Ja, so ein Fass wollte ich gar nicht erst aufmachen. Bei dem Beispiel was ich genannt habe, war es ja ohnehin offensichtlich, dass dies nur instrumentalisiert werden sollte. Und alle Experten und die Polizei haben öffentlich ihre starken Bedenken geäußert. Letztendlich wurde es nocheinmal abgewendet, aber der nächste Versuch ist schon in Arbeit…

Letztendlich würde ich mich sowieso darüber freuen wenn man Politik auf evidenzbasierter Basis macht. Und ein paar Probleme mit dem Kinderschutz und der Online-Welt sehe ich auch. Aber effektive Maßnahmen wären z.B. mehr Personal bei der Polizei. Und auch geschult dafür. Aber das kostet wieder unmittelbar Geld. Und ein paar andere Maßnahmen fielen mir da auch ein die man umsetzen könnte, wenn es einem denn wirklich um Kinderschutz ginge…

Ja. Das kommt davon, wenn man Kindesmissbrauch instrumentalisiert, und nur emotional argumentiert. Letztens wollte die EU Ende-zu-Ende-Verschlüsselung aufweichen und mit diesem Argument für Totalüberwachung werben. Und solche Bestrebungen gibt es jedes Jahr entweder von unseren Regierungen oder übergeordneten Institutionen. Selten geht es dabei um die eigentliche Sache oder effektiv dieses Problem zu lösen. Experten warnen eigentlich immer vorher, wenn das eine blöde Idee ist.

Ich hoffe das hier ist keine allzu dämliche Flickenschusterei. Jedenfalls habe ich die paar wenigen Artikel gelesen wo Lehrer und Eltern auf dieser Basis verurteilt werden mussten. Wobei mich die Aussage mit dem Weiterleiten von Nacktfotos an Dritte etwas verständnislos zurücklässt… In welchem Kontext wäre das eine auch nur halbwegs sinnvolle Tat? Und warum wird das hier so ganz nebenbei erwähnt, so komplett ohne Erklärung oder Einordnung?

Isn’t that very similar to what TikTok does? Just with a different algorithm and maybe other content than just videos?

Your ban in “Lefty Memes” and “Political Memes” seem to be permanent… Your ban from “World News” already expired.

Hmmh. Thanks. Yeah I think we got a bit off track, here… 😉

I kinda dislike when arguments end in “is there objective reality”. That’s kinda the last thing to remove any basis to converse on, at least when talking about actual things or facts.

Not sure if this counts as “little” because it has to go into the oven for 45mins… But it’s assembled in under 5 minutes and you can get rid of your old bananas that already turned brown:

Banana bread

4 Bananas, 80ml (vegetable) oil, 80g sugar, 250g flour, 2tsp baking powder, 1tsp vanilla sugar, some chocolate (drops).

Smash the bananas, mix in all the other ingredients to a smooth dough. Find some chocolate from christmas that’s still laying around in the house, crush it and mix it in.

Bake it at 170°C. Takes 40-50min in a loaf pan. Don’t forget to grase the pan before or use baking parchment.

Doesn’t need any fancy ingredients like milk or eggs. And you can pretty much wing it. You can also experiment, put some cinnamon or oat flakes in… And don’t bake it too well, I think it’s best when it’s still a bit gooey and moist inside.

Hmm. Maybe send the mod in question a DM?

And are you permabanned? Or just for a few hours? If it’s just that, take the timeout.

You still misinterpret what science is about. We’ve known that human language is subjective for centuries already. That’s why we invented an additional, objective language that’s concerned with logic and truth. It’s mathematics. And that’s also why natural science relies so heavily on maths.

And no sound scientist ever claimed that string theory is true. It was a candidate for a theory to explain everything. But it’s never been proven.

And which one is it, do you question objective reality? If so I’m automatically right, because that’s what I subjectively believe.

Hmmh. Would be interesting to find out if it has a concept of ‘rounded’ or ‘professional’ fonts, or if it just guessed random font names until you happened to like one if them. That isn’t always obvious and we have a tendency to see what we like/expect to see in such scenarios.

Yeah, I have that conversation regularly here on Lemmy. People use ChatGPT for all kinds of stuff. I’m more into the downloadable models like Meta’s Llama model. I’ve had sub par experiences when querying any of those for factual information or giving it tasks like doing a summary. I also just use it for stuff like your example. And for creative or recreational purposes. It can also help with creativity, come up with ideas or rephrase things. And translation works well. At least that’s been my experience.

Heheh. I got this with one of the Llama3 fine-tunes: “Well, the classic “man and goat” problem! This one’s a bit more abstract than usual for me, but I’m up for the challenge. Let me think… We have a man and a goat on one side of the river. They need to get to the other side but only have a single-person boat. The twist here is that if the goat is left unattended, it will eat the boat. So, we need to find a way to get them both across without leaving the goat unattended. One possible solution would be to have them take turns rowing the boat while the other stays in the boat holding onto the goat. […]” followed by more nonsense. Seems to be a good question.

On the fifth try it almost gets it: “Ah, I’ve got it! The man will first row the goat across. Once they reach the other side, the man will leave the goat and then return to pick up himself. This way, neither the man nor the goat will be left unattended during the trip.”

Reassuring to hear I’m not the only one with that perspective. (I mean I touched ChatGPT… But I wouldn’t use it for factual stuff or to filter information and feed it to me.)

I’m not sure there is a way to regulate deepfakes this way. I don’t think the technology is the issue. It’s more or less misusing a tool. As you can use a car to murder someone, you can also use generative AI to harm people. The thing itself is just a tool and was made for a different and valid purpose.

The issue is culture, and enforcing law on the internet. It sometimes still is the wild west. We’d need means of getting a hold of the places that host these deepfakes. Or provide services to generate unethical content. It’s them who should be held responsible and forced to take that offline. And implement precautions if we want that. Not Google nor Generative AI as a general tool.

It’s like your 5 year old daughter, relaying to you what she made of something she heard earlier.

That’s my analogy. ChatGPT kind of has the intellect and ability to differentiate between facts and fiction of a 5 year old. But it combines that with the writing style of a 40 year old with a uncanny love of mixing adjectives and sounding condescending.

I like you. You’re a bit stubborn and often confuse things, but it’s been nice talking to you. I appreciate it. I just wanted to say that, since I’m not sure I conveyed that properly in our earlier discussion.

I completely agree. I’m not sure where you live, but also live in a country with a lack of doctors. It’s a shame we have to wait months and months for therapy. And that’s not healthy, neither for the people in need, nor for society in general. And mental health is such a valuable thing.

I think you’re right with your assessment towards “open” models. I think that viewpoint has been popularized by the leaked google memo We Have No Moat, And Neither Does OpenAI last year. And unless we want the path forward to be laid out for us by companies like Google and OpenAI, there’s no way around independent and “open” models.

And I’d like those AIs to become more accessible, run on (affordable) consumer hardware. Maybe on my phone. Things like real-time translation would be great and I could have a simultaneous interpreter in my pocket. Or an assistant that can organize my files and keep track of everything. I think there is quite some potential and all of that is doable in the near future. And it’d seriously boost my own abilities if I were for example enabled to read Japanese text or Spanish news.

Concerning the AI at home: I use koboldcpp as of now. That enables me to run smaller models on my old computer. I use that for role play, companionship etc. I’m also having difficulties finding the time to build software around that. At some point I’d like to have a virtual companion that’s open-source, keeps me company and can do useful things. I would estimate I’d need like 4 weeks of full-time work to build something like that. But I’m already able to program in Python and have a broad understanding of the required components. Maybe one day I’ll find some time, but there’s so much other stuff that needs attention.

I’m confused. Lately people here have been telling me Google had become unusable and they nowadays use ChatGPT to get their information…

Now Google brings AI to search and that’s wrong, too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

No. Science isn’t done by a vote of majority. It’s the objective facts that matter. And you don’t pick experts or perspectives, that’s not scientific. It’s about objective truth. And a method to find that.

We’re now confusing science and futurology.

And I think scientists use the term “predict” and not “forecast”. There is a profound difference between a futorologist forecasting the future, and science developing a model and then extrapolating. The Scientific American article The Truth about Scientific Models you linked sums it up pretty well: “They don’t necessarily try to predict what will happen—but they can help us understand possible futures”. And: “What went wrong? Predictions are the wrong argument.”

And I’d like to point out that article is written by one of my favorite scientists and science communicators, Sabine Hossenfelder. She also has a very good YouTube channel.

So yes, what about DNA, quantum brains, Moore’s law, … what about other people claiming something. That all doesn’t change any facts.