@patatahooligan@lemmy.world
member since 15 Jun 2023 10:28
comments
- on Why is Hacker News like that? in c/technology@lemmy.world · 1d ago
-
on OpenAI boss and Elon Musk back calls to put brakes on ‘reckless’ AI development in c/technology@lemmy.world · 14 Sep 2026
Why even use it if you have to double check everything it says?
I have some bad news for you about how other people are using AI.
-
on My feed, My Way: Australia to force social media platforms to allow users to opt out of algorithms in c/technology@lemmy.world · 8 Sep 2026
The wording in the article body seems reasonable
Users can choose to opt in to having their default feed include personalised content recommended by the algorithm. Alternatively, users can opt out of personally recommended content in their default feed and see the friends and creators they choose to follow.
But then the actual quotes on the bottom don’t use this wording. I’m not sure what to expect.
-
on The Pollution Being Churned Out by AI Data Centers Is So Severe That It's Almost Incomprehensible in c/technology@lemmy.world · 18 Aug 2026
Money corrupts.
You say it as if OpenAI started with good intentions and got corrupted by the money. But the most likely explanation is that it was a scam from the start.
-
on Cloudflare says humans could become a "rounding error" as bots generate 1,000 times more internet traffic in c/technology@lemmy.world · 11 Aug 2026
Ever been in a traffic jam after someone ran a red light or stop sign and caused a wreck? If fewer (because zero is unrealistic) of those incidents happen, then there are fewer traffic jams caused by them, right? And when they do happen, it would be easier to reroute traffic early on – which might also make it easier/faster for emergency vehicles to get to the scene.
Yeah, this is reasonable, but that’s just lawful driving. You mentioned “coordination” before so I understood you meant that they will be able to drive significantly faster due to the coordination. That’s what I was responding to and why I pointed out reasons that autonomous cars will still have to drive carefully even if they are coordinating perfectly among themselves…
Or for an example that is completely unrelated to traffic: Condoms and vaccines are pretty effective. Maybe not 100%, but still enough to be useful. There are some areas in real life where absolutism is just unproductive.
Here’s my concern expressed in similar vein. Imagine a vaccine that you expect to be ~5% effective in the midst of a pandemic. You might say 5% is better than nothing, but actually it might give people a false sense of security. They might change their behavior (be less careful) to the point that the end result is the same or even worse than it was before the vaccine.
If we get autonomous vehicles, it’s almost certain that they will affect the number of cars on the road. If their (hopefully) better driving leads to only marginal gains in the prevention of congestion, the future might actually be more congested than the present.
-
on Cloudflare says humans could become a "rounding error" as bots generate 1,000 times more internet traffic in c/technology@lemmy.world · 10 Aug 2026
I don’t believe we will ever get coordinated autonomous vehicles. You will never be able to absolutely trust the information you are getting, whether it’s because wireless sucks, auto manufacturers couldn’t agree to or properly implement a universal standard, software bugs, or malicious behavior. If we want it to be safe, then the cars will have to drive cautiously and be prepared for behavior that was not properly communicated. This will not be a form of driving that is fundamentally different to what we have now.
And even if you could implement perfect coordination between autonomous vehicles, how would you be able to take advantage of it in the real world? Ban all human drivers? What about pedestrians and bikes? You still need crossings and traffic lights for an area to be livable by humans. You still need to drive slowly next to a pavement where someone could eg trip and fall onto the road.
In case anyone reading this is wondering if @muelltonne@feddit.org and Drew DeVault are imagining meanings behind these words, you can go and read the entire article:
paulgraham.com/woke.html
In context, it is clear that Paul Graham regards any public protest for social justice to be performative and born from a need to feel morally superior to others. “Racism […] is a genuine problem”, but you are only ever allowed to “quietly” help marginalized groups. His examples for the birth of “wokeness” are people starting to report sexual harassment and racist language. Paul is very mad that people told him it’s not ok to call black people “negros” and it shows plainly in his writing.
He does not give one example of what would be a real racist thing that you are allowed to get mad and vocal about. He does not give one example of proper not-“woke” activism. This is the telltale sign of a fascist pretending to be a moderate worried about the “intolerant left”. Social justices exist, but I won’t name a single one. Helping minorities is good, but every time I see it happen it’s bad and I’m going to call it out.