In this post it seems as though smart is being used to mean completely replacing the thing. I think that having both smart and dumb options is ideal, but in this particular context I think the reference point is that the smart object does not allow a manual override.

I agree with the overall sentiment, but a smart switch would be harder to change than a smart bulb most of the time. Smart switch would require electrical work to replace. A smart bulb can just be swapped. If anything the toilet is a good proxy. A smart flush means it won’t manually flush. If they had done a smart fill you could just manually fill the tank with water.

It’s somehow worse than the title suggests. People should read the article. I am getting sick of saying that, but each awful thing being done recently has so many implications that just can’t fit in a title.

How did ICI get this data? It says it has access to thousands of databases, but are those government databases? How do they have the legal authority to sell that data?

Yea, I agree 100%. My comment was definitely ambiguous, but I’m not expecting my old phone to get updated with AI tools (though it actually was), more just that I don’t want an AI specific gadget and I don’t think anyone but an enthusiast would. Definitely see these as the new VR, as you mentioned. It seems the article was lamenting product development as though it in itself is an end goal. UX and efficiency should be the end goal. Not just making things for the sake of saying you made something. I obviously support people expressing themselves and experimenting, but the framing in the article is so strange and reads like they’re lamenting the fact that capitalism has reached its latter stages more than anything else.

I’m not one to disagree with blaming capitalism lol. I was watching something recently about how millennials grew up with techno optimism, and I feel like we’re seeing the results of that. Millennials wanting tech to solve everything and grew up being into gadgets as a concept rather than a product, and the new generation so subsumed by tech that it really ceases to be tech. Like the way indoor plumbing or even electricity isn’t really seen as tech anymore, even though it really revolutionized our lifestyles. I think there’s some warranted backlash to tech (cottagecore/trad living) and the way it has atomized everyone, and I’m not sure people are as excited about it anymore. Price is definitely an issue, but I really think that tech is failing to fulfill us, and people are seeing that on some level (all this is also somewhat attributable to capitalism).

This article feels like peak consumerism. Lamenting the lack of a new thing, just for lack of it. AI is being integrated into already owned and available technology, and we have seen things like the AI pin, but people have just not had a need. Maybe this comment will age like milk, like people who said the internet was a fad, but people aren’t looking for more things, they’re looking for more functionality out of things they already have. That should be perceived as a positive.

Unfortunately, I can’t speak intelligently as to specifically what should be done with IP, but broad strokes I agree that output should be public domain and public facing models should be open. I do feel as though there should be a way to compensate people for inputs used for internal commercial purposes.

If there’s training needed for something and it has separate books/video, a company should not be able to throw that into an AI, and generate a new book/video for their internal use. Either they need to make that resource available publicly, or purchase a specific license for internal use of the original material for AI. I don’t know why I think that, mostly just vibes based because if they hired a person/company to do the same I’d be fine with it, so maybe I just have some cognitive dissonance going on, but it feels different. The way that there are commercial and personal licenses, I think having an AI license might make sense. But again, I’m way out of my depth and field of knowledge here, so I could be way off.

Correct, but they were stating that people should not support artists backing IP laws, and my lay understanding is that the only thing keeping it that way is IP laws. If we got rid of IP laws, I’m not sure individual artists would win. Large corporations would be able to produce at scale, and you’d get the same issue as with redbubble or whatever, but with legit companies instead of shady ones.

I’m not anti-ai art, but I think that if IP laws exists, artist should be able to use them. Either AI art is considered public domain, or it should be certified as having been trained only on public/properly compensated work. I do think current IP laws are so out of date they’re basically irrelevant, but artists should be able to enforce these archaic laws if they are subject to them.

Mind you, people will probably still pay 700k for the “original print” or whatever certified/signed by the person who generated it, but at least the work itself should be public.

That just leaves me with more questions, honestly.

What was happening in/with that array?

I think you just identified the actual problem, while shying away from identifying it as such. People shouldn’t take issue with ai, they should have issues with capitalism.

IMHO, the point of creative work can be debated, and you’re more than welcome to only be interested in non-ai work, but obviously that differs person to person. Some people might think that creative work is there to be enjoyed and if it brings joy then it’s valid. Plenty of people can enjoy AI work, even if you’re not one of them.

If what you’re fighting for is jobs for creatives, then I think it’s a bad argument. Nobody should be fighting for more things for capitalism to demand from anyone. Creatives should do their work separate and apart from the threat of capitalism, like everyone else. Anti-AI rhetoric serves to make people look like luddites while distracting from the actual problem - capitalism.

It feels reminiscent of the way narrators used to do books on tape. Modern ones are better imho, but all the pausing and intonation definitely seems “professional” more than conversational. Still extremely good.

I don’t know that the original commenter believed the AI legitimately was giving them industry secrets or anything. It came across as more of a joke than anything. Admittedly, almost no AI answer is trustworthy, but in this case it’s kinda funny that it’s giving an answer that is probably accurate but is probably not “brand safe”.

It doesn’t “know” anything. It contains complex associations, but it doesn’t actually have knowledge. Even if it did, the AI cannot “know the truth” unless it was in the meetings that took place regarding its creation or it was explicitly informed of that by someone that was there. It predicted an answer and that’s about the extent of it. For what it’s worth, the answer is definitely accurate in this case. What is your question even asking?

Yea, public transit differs wildly depending on area. Like I mentioned above, most drivers I saw actively resented this part of their job. To my recollection, the ramp was automated, but other than that the drivers would basically require you to ask for assistance and then huff and puff the whole time. Not all drivers, but a disproportionately large percentage. Would love to see that part of the job occupied by someone with more compassion, but you’re correct that with the current system someone would need to be there for that. I was figuring that if the vehicle was automated they’d have ADA compliant automated safety features as well.

Totally understandable to want to have a kind of “responsible party” there. Public transit has a relatively high proportion of vulnerable populations, so you make a good point.

You didn’t come off as defending anyone. I think it was just one of the first times I’ve heard someone talking about having mostly positive experiences on public transit (in the US). For what it’s worth, it’s nice to know it happens lol. Hope they continue to be positive!

Took the bus a lot as a kid/young adult. Some bus drivers were nice, but most were rude or basically had no impact on my commute. I’ve had a driver hit on me and then miss my stop multiple times after I declined. At least where I am, busses don’t stop at all stops unless there’s someone that needs to be picked up or dropped off and will regularly just skip stops if they’re running behind, regardless of how packed the bus or stop is. Have a bike, or need wheelchair access? The bus driver is going to give you attitude the whole time, if they stop for you at all. Some bus drivers were nice and would remember you and say hi, or help people who had questions, but it was a minority in my experience.

I’m not saying we’re ready to move to AI, but I can’t imagine what kind of positive they’re adding to your life that it is seen as a valid reason to keep them if they’re not actually needed. Like if they’re actually nice people, I would love to make sure they’re working jobs that need to be done and could use the injection of positivity you’re describing.

The picture is a screenshot of a recent viral video where a woman was being street interviewed and she referred to giving a sloppy bj. She said “hawk tuah” as the onomatopoeia for spitting and it became a a meme. In this picture they replaced the “tuah” with “tui” for text user interface. Hawk is a kind of bird. So the meme reads “hawk tui” is the name of their bird based text interface.