Cant blame me for asking :)

Seems like tools to recognize ai content to prevent synthetic input avoids model degredation.

If those tools are up to the task then i would agree it probably doesnt hinder model training. Not sure what the reality is, or if the need for those tools creates a barrier to entry for a significant portion of those trying to create models with internet-crawled data.

By chance, is that based on other peoples succinct social media comments on ai?

Kind of like how true thoughts and opinions on complex topics are boiled down to digestible concepts for others to understand who then perpetuate those concepts without understanding them and the meaning degrades and we dont think anymore, just repeat stuff in social media comments.

Side note… this article sucks and seems like it was ai generated. Repetitive and no author credit? Just says it was originally posted elsewhere.

Generative AI isnt in danger of being killed as this clickbait titled suggests… just hindered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoolander

Some people just want to hate on trump and hate on people who we percieve to be standing for the wrong things in the world and that makes sense to me. If you are just joking around on here then i get that.

I would say if you are trying to have an end goal like getting other people to agree with you about hating trump then i think its really important to not lie to reach that goal, or use disinformation to reach that goal. I dont think you are lying when you say you believe a trumper made it, for example, but assuming what you see is true because an ally posted it, is very possibly passing on disinformation and its effects can be just as bad.

If both sides are lying or using disinformation then i personally wouldnt know what to think about who is right. I think its really important to seek truth first, and then base our arguments on that… even if the other side is quicker to respond with lies, or is more convincing with lies.

Just be honest and dont be afraid to ask dumb questions so your opinions are built on a foundation thats real above all else. The idiots are those pretending to be experts and causing mass confusion, no matter what political stance.

Thats my thoughts on the current state of social media and stuff.

When a random image/text makes a claim, such as saying trump tried to pass off an ai generated image of himself as real, you might consider its not true.

Just because trump might not be someone i would trust, doesnt mean i should trust anything and everything that insults him, especially when that thing is nothing more than a jpeg with no information about where it came from.

So, in order to be a good participant of the internet, and to help avoid the perpetuation of disinformation, i would want to ask if the image has merit before accidentally forming some opinion on the matter. Or maybe even independently try to verify if its true through other sources. So far, nobody has been able to verify anything that suggests i should believe trump did this. So i think i wont be believing anything like this happened (yet).

Edit: and sorry for coming off as condescending in my first comment. I could have just been more straight forward with you instead of trying to comment something that i expected to be upvoted more. I really kind of caved to the karma system and the social pressure it creates.

Edited because i was being an asshole: To me it seems like this post isnt true, and is a meme meant to get upvotes and be funny.

Probably not. This post seems to want to imply that without making the claim directly. Just as disingenuous as what they are implying happened.

Thanks for commenting. We should be seeking truth.

When both sides discredit themselves then there is no truth anymore… just mass confusion. Im so sick of this disinformation age.

Edit: sorry to stalk your account but the objective nature of your comments on lemmy is a force for good. Seriously thanks for your efforts.

deleted by creator

This is wrong. Stop.

Sorry but a new pico headset wouldnt do much of anything. New meta headset, new valve headset would give a bump.

Really needs better content. The hardware is almost there (in terms of cost and accessibility of the experience).

Its slowly getting there. But the current population of vr users is characterized by: who would play the same limited experiences consistently with hardware that is often cumbersome and loading screens that arent super long but become your entire existence and its annoying.

Meta sucks but they have been a boon for vr development.

HEYY!!!

thanks for the real discussion and not memeing. i appreciate you. lemmy appreciates you.

I really truly suggest diversifying to newsfeeds without comment sections like techmeme for a bit.

Increasing complexity is overwhelming and theres plenty of bad shit going on but theres a lot overblown in your post.

Sorry for the long edit: i personally felt improvement for my mental health when i did this for 6 months or so. Because seriously, whatever disinformation is happening in american news is so exhausting. We need to think whatever we want and then engage with each other when our thoughts are more individualized. Dont be afraid to ask questions that might seem like you are questioning some holy established lemmy/reddit consensus. If you are being honest about your opinions and arent afraid to look dumb then you are doing the internet a HUGE service. We need more dumb questions and vulnerability to combat the obsession of appearing as an expert. So thank you for making a genuine post of concern.

Its what chaptgpt calls it.

Me. Moderate ai enthusiast and software engineer.

I think its the company’s responsibility to incorporate a technology to carry out their policy accurately. They cant just use an LLM stock from a vendor. They work to adapt it for their needs and get acceptable results. I think if an llm isnt considerably more accurate than humans then its a disservice to their customers and they should be responsible for that. There should be regulations to keep companies from using models if they dont work

Or counting has gotten worse

I agree that is a bit of an ethical minefield to employ it to make decisions that affect peoples livelihood. But my point is if a company uses it to decide if an insurance claim should be paid out, the models ability to make those decisions isnt changed by what we call the steps it takes to come to a decision.

If an insurance company can dissect any particular claim decision and agree with each step the model took, then is it really different than having someone do it? Might it be better in some ways? A real concern is the fact that ai isnt perfect and mistakes made are pretty hard to accept… seems pretty dystopian i get that. But if less mistakes are made and you can still appeal decisions then maybe its overblown?

Ah the old reddit switcharoo!