As a self-employed general contractor-handyman-plumber, I feel pretty secure about the future of my work prospects. If anything, an AI that could reliably deliver correct information would be immensely useful in my line of work, given how I run into technical questions on a daily basis.

The article states that it was caught on surveillance camera.

Seems justified to me. There’s no way of telling a fake gun from a real one at a distance and if you point it at the police when they’re telling you to drop it, that’s just asking to get shot.

What’s your problem? Why so accusatory?

I’d argue that virtually every driver has at some point driven while tired to some degree, but most have never driven drunk. Driving drunk shows poor judgment not only when you get behind the wheel, but also when you started drinking without considering you might need to drive later. You can’t really blame someone for suffering from insomnia - but you can blame them for drinking.

I don’t get why you assume I’d think the sentence should be shorter.

I’d say killing a person because you were drunk driving is worse offence than killing someone because you fell a sleep but neither of them are intentional. If he did this because he hates cyclists it would be a whole another story.

In addition to the pending prison sentence, he must pay $2,500, complete 60 hours of community service and submit to quarterly drug testing as part of the plea deal. His driver’s license will also be suspended for nearly six months.

Sentencing people to life in prison wont bring the dead back alive. He clearly didn’t intend to kill anyone and intentions matter. I don’t get the blood thirst here.

It is a big part of the issue, but as Lemmy clearly demonstrates, that issue doesn’t go away even when you remove the algorithm entirely.

I see it a lot like driving cars - no matter how much better and safer we make them, accidents will still happen as long as there’s an ape behind the wheel, and probably even after that. That’s not to say things can’t be improved - they definitely can - but I don’t think it can ever be “fixed,” because the problem isn’t it - it’s us. You can’t fix humans by tweaking the code on social media.

Ofcourse not. The issue with social media are the people. Algorithms just bring out the worst in us but it didn’t make us like that, we already were.

They also mindlessly broadcast whatever lies the CEOs of the big tech company’s are telling.

LLMs? Want to give an example of this? When ChatGPT 5 came out I asked it what the “thinking built in” means and it told me it’s probably just a marketing term.

no one else sees that the media is driving a weird campaign against AI

Media criticism tends to fly out the window the moment the narrative aligns with someone’s personal views. Echo chambers can be hard to recognize once you’re inside one. If I didn’t come to Lemmy, I’d barely even know that there are people who’ve made hating AI their whole identity - they seem to be nowhere to be found in the real world.

For me LLMs have been the biggest thing since podcasts. Feels almost like gaslighting to read this AI hate here virtually every day as it doesn’t even remotely align with my personal experience of it.

Definitely a much more evil company than all the others still doing it purely out of fear of being bullied into bankruptcy otherwise.

From my European point of view, this whole thing looks like keeping shoes on indoors - mostly only done by Americans, and even there, most people think it’s stupid.

One situation where I wouldn’t bother explaining myself is when it’s obvious the other person isn’t actually interested in a conversation, and they’re just there to posture and throw accusations.

You have a great day.

I have not downvoted you in this thread.

You think you have - but there’s really no way of knowing.

Just because someone writes like a bot doesn’t mean they actually are one. Feeling like “you’ve caught one” doesn’t mean you did - it just means you think you did. You might have been wrong, but you never got confirmation to know for sure, so you have no real basis for judging how good your detection rate actually is. It’s effectively begging the question - using your original assumption as “proof” without actual verification.

And then there’s the classic toupee fallacy: “All toupees look fake - I’ve never seen one that didn’t.” That just means you’re good at spotting bad toupees. You can’t generalize from that and claim you’re good at detecting toupees in general, because all the good ones slip right past you unnoticed.

If you want the killing to stop, then you have to talk about viable ways to make it stop - not what would be nice in some perfect universe we don’t live in. I’ve yet to see a single suggestion from you about what should be done instead.

Your cartoon example isn’t even remotely equivalent to the reality Putin is in. He went in expecting to take Kyiv in a week with minimal resistance and no serious Western response. Even in his worst-case planning, he didn’t prepare for what he’s in now. The point where he could have cut his losses passed long ago - he’s gone all in, and now the West is calling his bluff.

Put yourself in his position and look at the “solution” being offered: withdraw all troops, surrender the little territory you’ve gained, and face the full weight of everything you’ve gambled and lost. The alternative? Keep throwing whatever you have left at the problem and hope for a miracle.

Given he’s likely only got another decade or so left to live, there’s no personal incentive to fold now. He has nothing more to lose - he’s not just going to walk away.