60% less than the last presidential election. The one Biden won.

Stop blaming third parties for the Democrats’ failure to build a coalition within its own party.

Literally all of the third party voters could have voted a straight Democrat ticket and it wouldn’t have affected a single swing state. Third-party voting was down by about 60% versus 2020.

an AI market that’s projected to reach $1.3 trillion by 2032.

I wish there was a way to short an entire industry., I could get rich on betting against techbro hype.

Hey @1984@lemmy.today, did you forget about me?

Who are you talking about that is insisting there can be no deviation from the norm?

Right-wingers, the only people who have ever had a problem with diversity.

Banning words and discussions is absolutely the wrong way to go.

I’m confused about what you mean, because the only people doing that are the “Don’t Say Gay” Florida Republicans.

And my point is very simple. Don’t ban words.

I get the feeling that you’re going to be angry when I point out that the only people banning words are the ones who want to make it illegal to teach kids that people like me exist.

Have open discussions. Don’t support censorship of opinions or words.

Make up your mind, do you want to actually have open discussions or do you think that avoiding censorship of the “opinions and words” of discriminatory groups is more important than the presence of the groups they discriminate against?

Stop trying to control what people should think, and stop trying to teach them what you think is right.

…

What do you think “teaching” is?

But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it’s better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?

This is naive.

How are we supposed to teach people to accept variation when they insist that there can be no deviation from the norm?

Because right now it’s a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized.

I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. Just a moment ago you were complaining that the language we use to talk about this topic was a problem, now we’re supposedly telling people not to talk about it? Pick a lane!

I think it’s fine that everyone gets to say what their gender is, as long as the archetypal roles stay the same - man or female.

But otherwise, sure, people can define their gender how they like.

I’m noticing a contradiction here.

Gender can be a word for how people define themselves, as long as we instead use “archetypal roles” to define what our physical body looks like.

And for those of us who don’t fit those archetypes?

I think what is frustrating is when people start to say that we shouldn’t include our physical body type at all in discussions. That’s taking it too far in my opinion.

Generally, it is considered impolite to talk to strangers about one’s genitals.

Going to the doctor and not telling what body type you are makes diagnosis impossible in same cases.

The medical setting is one of the few contexts where talking about one’s anatomy isn’t considered a faux pas.

And for what reason? That part doesn’t make any sense to me.

Do you want the historical explanation of how puritainism affected our culture?

Race, body type, and other things are important to know in many cases.

They’re relevant a lot less often than you’d think.

I’ll take this as a good faith question, and the short answer is that gender is a lot more complicated than that.

Yes there are two archetypal roles involved in sexual reproduction, but even that isn’t so simple. There isn’t just one feature that defines male or female, but a combination of traits including chromosomes, gametes, anatomy, hormones, etc. In the real world, some folks are born with features that don’t all agree with one or another archetype. Intersex people aren’t common, about 1 in 2,000, but their existence proves that sex isn’t just a binary. There’s diversity to sex that requires a more complicated scheme to account for everybody.

Gender, likewise, doesn’t follow the one-or-the-other model. Most folks are cisgender, but some folks have a gender that doesn’t agree with what people assume their sex is, or no gender at all, or a gender that doesn’t fit into the man/woman spectrum. It gets complicated quickly because gender is where sex and society intersect. Some cultures have different expectations based on gender, and some even have more than two recognized genders. That’s why we say “gender is a social construct”, because we all get to define for ourselves what it means to be a man, woman, or otherwise. And that’s also how gender is constructed, it’s a social project we all engage in collectively whether we realize it or not. Most just pass along the traditional gender roles that were passed to them, but those can change rather rapidly as society changes, like when clean-shaven faces became “manly” in response to WW1 soldiers having to shave so that their gas masks could maintain a good seal.

Precisely.

Gender isn’t binary, there is no such thing as a male or female nipple. That distinction is something that Humans made up.

Irradiated water is fine.

You’re thinking of radioactive water, which is water with radioactive stuff in it.

Subjecting regular water to regular amounts of radiation is fine, even if it’s high-energy gamma rays. If there’s enough radiation to make water itself radioactive then you have bigger problems than radioactive water.

Bonus, you can ask for clarification on everything.

You forgot to put caveats on all the things you claim LLMs can do, but only one of them doesn’t need them.

Why would you think that LLMs can do sentiment analysis when they have no concept of context or euphemism and are wholly incapable of distinguishing sarcasm from genuine sentiment?

Why would you think that their translations are of any use given the above?

https://www.inc.com/kit-eaton/mother-of-teen-who-died-by-suicide-sues-ai-startup/90994040

Then what’s the LLM for?

LLMs arent “bad” (ignoring, of course, the massive content theft necessary to train them), but they are being wildly misused.

“Analysis” is precisely one of those misuses. Grand Theft Autocomplete can’t even count, ask it how many 'e’s are in “elephant” and you’ll get an answer anywhere from 1 to 3.

This is because they do not read or understand, they produce strings of tokens based on a statistical likelihood of what comes next. If prompted for an analysis they’ll output something that looks like an analysis, but to determine whether it is accurate or not a human has to do the work.

The argument could be made economically rather than ideologically.

Capitalism has a failure mode where too much capital gets concentrated into too few hands, depressing the flow of money moving through the economy.

But Capitalists start crying “Socialism!” as soon as you start talking about anti-trust.

I think you are confused about the delineation between local and federal governments.

I am not, I simply don’t believe the delineation is relevant since taxpayers fund both the state and federal budgets.

Also, this feels like you are too capitalism-pilled

This is me being “reasonable” and working within the constraints of the system. If we aren’t going to have free universal college et al then we can at least trade some of the bloated military budget for a public works program.

People would seriously read through them for 1 day, and then they’d be like, “clear”, “clear”, “clear” without looking at half of them.

Sounds to me like a 50% improvement over zero human eyes.

It’s not like you’re gonna find and fund another group to review the first group’s work, after all.

Why not? We could hire three teams to do it simultaneously in every state in the country and the cost would still be a tiny fraction of how much was wasted on the F-35 program.

Tulips all the way down…

LLMs neither understand nor analyze text. They are statistical models of the text they were trained on. A map of language.

And, like any map, they should not be confused for the territory they represent.

If you admit that they have issues with facts, why would you assume that the randomly generated facts their “analysis” produces must be accurate?

So, what? They’re going to pay a human to OK the output and the whole lot of them never even gets seen?

Say 12 minutes per covenant, that’s 1 million work hours that humans could get paid for. Pay them $50 an hour and it’s $50 million. That’s nothing, less than 36 hours worth of the $12.5 Billion in weapons shipments we’ve sent to Israel in the last year. We could pay for projects like this with the rounding errors on the budget for blowing up foreign kids, and the people we pay to do it could afford to put their kids through college.

Instead, we get a project to train a robotic bigotry filter for real estate legalese and 50 more cruise missiles from the savings.

The use of LLMs instead of someone that can actually understand context.