I loved reading your insights on the tech! E ink is such a fascinating tech… Pity about the NDA though, I would love to hear a lot more!

The title is mentioning e-paper though and if I have understood correctly that could imply a different tech is being used here. So here’s what (I think) I know, e-paper is a broader category that includes other tech that is not e-ink but very low power screens, such as the screen used by the old smart watches Pebble, which had a color memory LCD that could achieve something like 20 fps or something like that? Just enough to create nice animations and fluid UI. Of course changing the screen meant higher consumption, but the LCD could keep the image by using a very low but non-zero energy.

Although it seems that e-paper and e-ink are commonly just mixed as if they would be the same, while to me e-ink is a type of e-paper. Do you feel my understanding is correct on how the tech is categorised and maybe the screen from the article could be memory LCD or something else that is not e-ink?

It’s so great to be able to find comments such as yours, unfortunately it feels uncommon in Lemmy specially when certain names are mentioned, the bias and willfulness to shit on those are making people a bit blindsided and easy to guide through bad data usage. My first thought reading the title was about the statistical value of the numbers given, which doesn’t detract from the actual quality or lack thereof of the vehicle. At the moment using elon musk or tesla in a title of an article will increase the traffic automatically. Which is why we constantly get every single shitty comment made by him reported with useless data.

Google is going to likely sell his AI tech to the military, so you know… They are all shit. Which shit smells worse is a useless comparison, they are all shit.

Details schmetails… At the end of the week he is probably super duper repenting and asks for forgiveness. What, you want a perfect human? Who hasn’t murdered someone on a bad week? Or raped? Or stolen? Or had an affair? Or all of it?

Hopefully not needed but just to be sure /s

Yeah, it makes it better and more reliable in harsh conditions, I agree, but driving has always been based on people looking where they go, so camera imagery is enough for driving. If it is not safe for a person, then it’s not safe for a car with only cameras. Plus only having cameras doesn’t mean you cannot use special equipment, IR cameras can improve visibility on harsh conditions too. Not that I mean they are used, but you know, it’s a matter of what we mean with “enough to drive”. Again, I want to emphasize that I agree, having LiDAR or other tech would be much much better.

Well, not to side with the fascist shithead, but you know, “broken clock…”. The thing is, camera vision is kinda enough… It’s an entirely different thing if it could be better, improved, safer, or whatever by adding LiDAR or other tech…

There’s two points of consideration here, let’s see if I can make my point without a wall of text, I’m prone to those…

1. Anonimity: the fact that where you connect cannot know who exactly you are. This should be straightforward, anonimity should not be taken away, it is a core part of the internet in my opinion. It’s extremely important that we can express ourselves freely without fear of being persecuted. Despite the negative sides that it has, as those with ill intent will be harder to find (but not impossible). In this the common quote attributed to Franklin applies well in my opinion: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

2. Proof of personhood: basically the difficult task of making sure that the other end of an internet connection has a real person, and together with that, proof that it is different than others, the ability to know you are you and not someone else.

This is incredibly interesting as a technical problem to be solved, and I do agree with you that the internet as we know it is at risk if we don’t solve it properly. It is specially hard to solve if you try to guarantee anonimity (like I believe it should be).

The wikipedia has an article about it that I think gives a good idea about the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_personhood

Personally I have been quite carefully interested into the whole World ID solution, using a device called orb with open specifications that captures some data from your iris that should be unique per person, storing only an encrypted piece of information in a blockchain and on your device locally so that you can use it to identify yourself as a real unique person and only once, but wherever you use it, cannot know anything about you except that. There’s a lot of possible criticism to such a system, but insofar as I have checked and can understand, it seems like a legit solution. But I leave here the link for anyone interested enough to check it themselves: https://world.org/world-id

Wtf… I heard of the wedding thing with the digital character but I had no clue he also had a life sized doll… I dont know why it somehow makes it even worse.

Ah, understood, thanks for pointing it out

So many people trying to say it is normal in the US, but it is the US the one with the rule of having a paper bag to cover alcohol anywhere public. Sure at home it might also be more normal but that is already indicative of a certain point of view which I’m guessing is what OP was talking about.

Accused, but if I remember correctly it didn’t go further than that. And she was by far one of the best PMs I’ve seen working in many countries.

It was already tough being in a world where it’s hard to see the difference between the onion articles and actual news. Now we’re on a completely new level where news can be the result of playing CAH. It’s kinda funny until you stop to think how terrible it is.

They clicked the install button of an ad, that’s the whole point, what a weird specific detail to get hung up on anyway even if you were not wrong (which you are). It’s not just an annoying ad, it’s an ad hidden as actual results of a search with an identical install button. Google is to blame for that style to clearly try and cheat people and they deserve all the backlash and fines and more for it. But clicking a button that says install without checking what it belongs to is beyond ignoring any basic security, it’s simply stupid, and that’s on the user, not on google.

Google being evil and assholes doesn’t remove the fact that this person literally didn’t spend a second to check what they clicked.

Digital safety starts with everyone, despite if we need laws to regulate the asshole companies trying to mess with people’s lack of attention.

Well damn, thank you so much for the answer. That has gone well and beyond what I’d have called a great answer.

First of all I just wanted to acknowledge the time you put into it, I just read it and in order to make a meaningful answer for discussion I probably need to read your comment a couple more times, and consider my own perspective on those topics, and also study a few drops of information you gave where sincerely you lost me :D (being a neutral monist, and about Searle and such, I need to study a bit that area). So, I want to give an adequate response to you as well and I’ll need some time for that, but before anything, thanks for the conversation, I didn’t want to wait to say that later on.

Also, worth mentioning that you did hit the nail in the head when you summed up all my rambling into a coherent one question/topic. I keep debating myself about how I can support creators while also appreciating the usefulness of a tool such as LLMs that can help me create things myself that I couldn’t before. There has to be a balance somewhere there… (Fellow programmer brain here trying to solve things like if you are debugging software, no doubt the wrong perspective for such a complex context).

UBI is definitely a goal to be achieved that could help in many ways, just like a huge reform of copyright would also be necessary to remove all the predators that are already abusing creators by taking their legal rights on the content created.

The point you make of anthropomorphizing LLMs is absolutely a key point, in fact I avoid all I can mentioning AI because I believe it muddles the waters so much more than it should (but it’s a great way of selling the software). For me it goes the other way actually and I wonder how different we are from an LLM (oversimplifying much…) in the methods we apply to create something and where’s the line of being creative vs depending on previous things experienced and basing our creation in previous things.

Anyway, that starts getting a bit too philosophical, which can be fun but less practical. Respecting your other comment, I do indeed follow Doctorow, it’s fascinating how much he writes, and how clear he can expose ideas. It’s tough to catch up with him at times with so much content. I also got his books in the last humble bundle, so happy to buy books without DRM… I’ll try to think a bit more these days on these topics and see what I can come up with. I don’t want to continue rambling like a madman without setting some order to my own thoughts first. Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation.

I would love to hear your opinion on something I keep thinking about. There’s the whole idea that these LLMs are training on “available” data all over the internet, and then anyone can use the LLM and create something that could resemble the work of someone else. Then there’s the people calling it theft (in my opinion wrong from any possible angle of consideration) and those calling it fair use (I kinda lean more on this side). But then we have the side of compensation for authors and such, which would be great if some form for it would be found. Any one person can learn about the style of an author and imitate it without really copying the same piece of art. That person cannot be sued for stealing “style”, and it feels like the LLM is basically in the same area of creating content. And authors have never been compensated for someone imitating them.

So… What would make the case of LLMs different? What are good points against it that don’t end up falling into the “stealing content” discussion? How to guarantee authors are compensated for their works? How can we guarantee that a company doesn’t order a book (or a reading with your voice in the case of voice actors, or pictures and drawings, …) and then reproduces the same content without you not having to pay you? How can we differentiate between a synthetic voice trained with thousand of voices but not the voice of person A but creates a voice similar to that of A against the case of a company “stealing” the voice of A directly? I feel there’s a lot of nuances here and don’t know what or how to cover all of it easily and most discussion I read are just “steal vs fair use” only.

Can this only end properly with a full reform of copyright? It’s not like authors are nowadays very well protected either. Publishers basically take their creation to be used and abused without the author having any say in it (like in the case of spot if unpublished a artists relationship and payment agreements).

I just wanted to say, it’s refreshing to read a well argumented comment such as this one. It’s good to see every once in a while there are still some people thinking things through without falling for automatic hatred to either side of a discussion.

Why would you make the immigrants suffer his presence? They have it hard enough as it is. I prefer to think he’ll get to make some nice friends in prison.

I’m so glad to see this posted. The whole meme of bear vs man made me feel at odds and while I saw what the point was that it tried to raise it still didn’t really do a great job to me. After a lot of thinking about it and discussing it in other threads I finally understood what I feel is the issue. While the answer given by most (if not all) women is shocking and shows the feeling of uncertainty and unsafeness the question is framed in such a way that it creates division and sexism. The problem is not what women are answering, the issue is that it puts men on the other side without any more thought. It divides us into women vs either men or bears. I’m not a woman, I’m not a bear, and I don’t want to be a man seen as a danger. I understand the issue and I want to be part of the solution and create a safer world for everyone.

This whole topic wouldn’t have made me see the problem if it wasn’t for the effect that other ways to raise awareness have had in the past. For me the greatest method to raise awareness was the #metoo movement. That’s when I could see the issue and what kind of effect it has. It was a movement that didn’t automatically make me feel excluded, it was a movement that raised awareness of the victims, but it didn’t have to be only women, also men that had been victims could raise it if they felt empowered by it. It was horrifying seeing the spread of it, and then there must be all the ones that didn’t say anything. That’s a movement I can get behind, that’s the way to raise awareness. Since then I try to be more aware of the kind of behavior that creates those feelings of unsafeness for women and if I would ever notice something done by others I’d try to step up. The whole man vs bear is terrible at doing the same.

After a lot of thinking and reading a lot of the answers here (only considering the actually serious ones, not the ones dismissing what it means that women answer the bears or the ones that dismiss the answers of men unhappy about the comparison) I’ve come up with what bothers me of the whole situation and since you seemed to actually be really polite in the discussion and spent the effort on giving me a different point of view I wanted to post my realization and thought process with an answer for you but also hoping others will see it.

The issue we are facing with this hypothetical situation and question, “would you rather meet a random unknown man or a bear alone in the forest?”, is that instead of raising awareness of the issue, instead of trying to find a solution, it is increasing the problem, it increases and promotes the fear. Let me explain better.

The issue I feel is clearer if we change the question not to aim sexism and sexual assault, but aim it at describing racism and violence due to racism. If you are a black person (we could simplify by assuming a man, to avoid getting again into the gender differences), would you want to meet a random white guy or a bear alone in the forest? Now, black people can and definitely are suffering racism at different levels constantly, depending where they live we can say that most have been the objective of some racist behavior. If they answer “I’d rather face a bear than a random white guy” because they are afraid they are going to end up meeting a white dude that is racist and would attack them due to race, it demonstrates a big issue that there’s that fear but there’s no way around the fact that the question is racist and pushes the racism forward by increasing the fear of any random white guy when in average no white person would wish any bad to any other race (which doesn’t mean racism isn’t a big issue in society).

The hypothetical question is a sexist question the way it is made that enforces the fear of any man. We need to make this very clear. Men are not rapists by default. Men won’t assault a woman when they get a chance. When a man is not attacking a woman it is not for a lack of opportunity. That’s what this hypothetical does, it tells that the only thing needed for a random man to assault a woman is an opportunity. Way too many women suffer sexual assault, it is a problem too widespread, but not because all men do it, but because most women suffer it. The answer to the hypothetical question should be “a man, because a random man out of the whole population is nearly without a doubt not going to be a rapist”. The fact that the answer is not that, means that we as a society are failing at making half the population feel safe. See, the problem is not the answer of women, the problem is the question, the question causes more damage than anything by enforcing the fear and dividing society between men and women. Instead of dividing society between rapists, assaulters and victims. Most women are victims of sexual assault, but not only women are victims. By setting the question as man vs bear, it enforces a different type of sexism. Men that feel that sexism and raise the issue are being marked as part of the problem, as assaulters. If I feel that the question is sexist and problematic it must mean that I don’t care for women and their safety, I’m a bear too… That’s what this question is proving to me, the amount of sexism still present both ways and how unsafe women feel around unknown men.

I think that this hypothetical is dangerous, it creates division based on gender, it makes sexism a bigger issue instead of fighting it. Instead, better ways of handling this topic could be such as raising awareness of how many victims of sexual assault there are the way it was done with the #metoo tag (if I remember correctly that’s what it was called) in social networks where many victims felt empowered to come out and show how many there are. Independent of gender. Another good way to raise awareness is another thread I saw yesterday asking women what they would do if they had 24 hours where there would be no men around without consequences for them, after 24 hours they are back and all continues as usual. Most were answering that they would dress nice, even provocative, put make up, go out with girlfriends and drink, without the fear of being abused, assaulted or worse. That shows the real problem. That tells a lot about the lack of safety for women specifically without making the men that are also victims feel like part of the problem. We can tell how women feel normally, without muddling the waters by comparing men to bears, and equating victims to women and men as the problem, when men can also be victims. We need to address these issues, yes. But not like this. Not making sexism a bigger issue.