Especially with titties, you think your five year old can’t deduce that those bumps on women’s chest have a nipple on it just like theres. Even if they can’t I doubt that revelation will be traumatic or earth shattering.

Or just VPN, I assume that’s what most people are doing in those states.

I could see it being a good way to support artists, if that’s where the money is going.

It seems a lot of your critiques are more of the media in general and not social media.

if I got my news and my understanding of the world from Lemmy, it would be easy to believe a whole bunch of people in the United States have given up on civil society and committed themselvesto political violence.

Yeah and if I got my news from Fox News or the New York post it would be easy to believe the cities are full of gangs of maurading immigrants. At least lemmy doesn’t pretend to be a “fair and balanced” representative of the US. Everyone here knows lemmy is far left relative to the US just like they know everyone’s not using or interested in Linux .

As for the favoring of longer form more in depth content vs short form out of context content, that’s just what people like and are drawn to regardless of the media type. More people will watch TV news with shorter segments and less content then a newspaper, and more people will watch late night with even shorter form and less context then TV news. And then there are people who don’t watch or engage with the news at all because they have other things to do.

If anything lemmy is better then a lot of the other social media because it doesn’t disincentivize links. Most other platforms the algorithm is optimizing for watch time / keeping you on the platform, so links to long form news articles get down rated because if you click on that link and go to that site for 5 mins, that’s 5 mins your not spending on the platform. For that sample you took half of the top posts were links to articles, see how long it would take you to find one article link scrolling through tik tok.

Of course, the most passionate, angry, dramatic, and emotion-provoking memes get the most upvotes and go to the top of the algorithm.

Again this is a problem with all media, if it bleeds it leads has been an adage for centuries.

In general lemmy is showing people what they want to see, which media in general has always tried to do. Yes there are a lot of valid critiques of the behavior that this prerogative incentivizes, but that’s different than the critiques of algorithmic social media that prioritizes engagement and staying on the platform, which brings in a whole new set of problematic incentives in addition to the standard problems of media.

Yeah, most of what the article complains about is algorithmic social media and how it boosts engagement of any kind, whether positive or negative. This leads to “extremist” takes gaining ground easier then moderate takes. Combined with algorithmic siloing, echo chambers etc. That we’ve heard a million times, make people more radical and disconnected from reality.

The “algorithm” most people use on lemmy is just most up voted, so controversial takes rarely rise to the top. A lot of the stuff would be considered controversial outside of here, but within lemmy there’s a “hard left” consensus where the moderates are probably democratic socialists.

Probably will get it anyway, companies don’t like to build and maintain software for two different markets so they tend to just follow the regulations of the strictest market, especially if those regulations don’t really cut into there bottom line like this one.

Hamas probably won’t go for this as it still requires them to demilitarize and they, along with a lot of Palestinians in gaza, view that as a path to slow ethnic cleansing like what’s happening in the west bank.

You’d think the “Hillary’s gonna take our guns” Republicans would understand not wanting to surrender your guns and security to a government in general, much less one that’s been trying to genocide you for decades.

I assume they already did this for advertising purposes, just like every other platform trying to guess your demographics to sell you more useless shit.

Idk, looks like a cigarette to me. /s

It’s not even just the bad they’re not showing, they aren’t showing anything outside of a suburban straight white guys point of view. Which does reflect a lot of 80s media but doesn’t reflect the experience of a lot of people in the 80s

This is the same guy who tweeted that the progressives on San feanciscos city council should die a slow painful death.

Self proclaimed “5 star man” Dennis Reynolds is the top suspect

This study isn’t about total clicks, or a drop in traffic to Google caused by people not liking the ai overview. It’s about for each Google search that was executed, how often did someone click on a link. Without ai it was 15% and with ai it is 8%. So if anything its proving the customers like the ai overviews and believe they are getting enough from them to answer their query.

Sure there are probably a couple people who see the overview at the top and hate ai so much they leave Google without clicking anything, but those people will probably only do that once or twice before they stop using Google entirely or disable the feature, and thus wouldn’t count much in the data about ai overview searches.

Same here in the US with AI, but instead of the government giving subsidies its venture capitalists.

It’s not that borrowing money is free, zero interest rates means the government pays zero interest for its loans, not companies. It does put downward pressure on interest rates companies pay but they’re still going to have to pay a couple percent apy.

The reason zero interest rates are good for tech is because it forces capital to seek more long-term and risky investments. If I have a lot of money and can get 6% apy from loaning it to the US government, the safest bet on the market, why would I invest in something else? If i can’t get any money from loaning to the government (zero interest rates), and i cant get much from loaning it to other institutions because of that downward pressure, then maybe I’ll buy some more risky tech stocks because it’s possible for that company to grow more then the 1-2% id get from just lending my money. Most of techs financing is done through selling stock, not loans.

I guess that’s one advantage of stack overflow, sometimes you need a guy to tell you the entire basis of your question is dumb and wrong.

The actual survey result:

Asked whether “scaling up” current AI approaches could lead to achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI), or a general purpose AI that matches or surpasses human cognition, an overwhelming 76 percent of respondents said it was “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to succeed.

So they’re not saying the entire industry is a dead end, or even that the newest phase is. They’re just saying they don’t think this current technology will make AGI when scaled. I think most people agree, including the investors pouring billions into this. They arent betting this will turn to agi, they’re betting that they have some application for the current ai. Are some of those applications dead ends, most definitely, are some of them revolutionary, maybe

Thus would be like asking a researcher in the 90s that if they scaled up the bandwidth and computing power of the average internet user would we see a vastly connected media sharing network, they’d probably say no. It took more than a decade of software, cultural and societal development to discover the applications for the internet.

it will be relatively easy to strip off

How so? If it’s anything like llm text based “water marks” the watermark is an integral part of the output. For an llm it’s about downrating certain words in the output, I’m guessing for photos you could do the same with certain colors, so if this variation of teal shows up more than this variation then it’s made by ai.

I guess the difference with images is that since you’re not doing the “guess the next word” aspect and feeding the output from the previous step into the next one, you can’t generate the red green list from the previous output.

It seems to be a bit of both. The article does cite a lot of comments agreeing with what the older relatives said and getting a bunch of likes. So some people are laughing at how horrible and racist it is, but some are laughing at the unapologetically saying what we’re all thinking aspect.

A lot of racist jokes are just people saying their biases out loud and unapologetically, and then the racists laugh because they agree, and they get to affirm those beliefs. You might get some people on the other side laughing at the absurdity, but for the people of the race being made fun of, it just feels like the attack it is. Especially when the subject is serious and you can’t distance yourself from it, and nothing is more serious than genocide.

Like if you showed these to a Palestinian child they’d probably become depressed and scared by it. If you showed these to a boomer israeli they would probably laugh at it and say they’re right.