It’s because I live and work with Muslims. Turns out there are as many of them who hold values I agree with as there are Christians or Jews.

The biggest difference I see is which groups get hate. I don’t see the need to defend Christianity because there’s no pervasive disparagement or hostility.
I occasionally defend Judaism because I occasionally encounter disparaging language or people who conflate the nation of Israel with either the ethnic group or the religion.

A lot of people make comments about how they’re not islamaphobic, but it just so happens to be that reality perfectly reflects their prejudiced beliefs.
Kinda like the people who aren’t mysoginists or anything, but have found that, coincidentally, the ideal and natural gender roles and power dynamics between the sexes perfectly mirrors the media representation of the 1950s.

As much as I think we should look to Europe for running a society, race and religious tolerance are not one of those subjects in which I defer to them.

Do you actually think it’s unexpected that people who are never fully allowed to integrate into society for some reason don’t fully integrate into society? That laws that make it specifically difficult for them to coexist might result in them … Not coexisting as well?

If it’s the content of their texts that’s causing you a concern, have I got news for you about every fucking religion.

… You know literally nothing about the technology if you can only conceive of chatgpt as the baseline, or if you think that it started in 2022.

Chatgpt is based on GPT, the first version of which was released in 2018 and based on work done by Google from the early 2010s through their publicized works in 2017.

If you’re so annoyed, why do you keep responding? I think you’re just defensive about the AI tools that you like and want them to be somehow different from the ones you don’t.

Hopefully they never even knew. Just assumed the catch would come until it suddenly didn’t and they never noticed.

Extramarital affairs are bad, but they’re not the same as punishing someone for a joke you don’t appreciate. And not responding to a text with a joke you didn’t find funny is only dubiously that.
Infidelity can be abusive if used as a tool of power, control, or harm. Not all hurtful or disrespectful acts are intrinsically abusive.

I take it you weren’t paying much attention during the whole thing?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/11/why-tiger-s-not-talking-about-his-accident.html

Tldr: initial reports indicated that she hit his car and attacked him with a golf club before the crash. Police stated alcohol didn’t play a role in the crash. He denied any claims of domestic violence and says she smashed both of his back windows to help him out of the car.

That’s certainly what I said isn’t it?

Do you have any reason to believe he’s the emotionally abusive type of asshole?

Doing something wrong doesn’t mean everything they do is wrong.

Hell, we have more evidence for him being the victim of abuse than the perpetrator.

Yeah, pretty much. No one is making me go and I like to see my coworkers occasionally to either plan or just get lunch and maintain some human connection.
But… It’s a 1.5 hour drive and the traffic is never, ever, ever nice. I was once passed by a car towing a boat full of loose hay. Must have been going 90mph.

So I do it, but I also cry after making that decision.

Nope, seems a bit wrong to me. I just don’t see that behavior in this interchange.

No one has alleged he’s that type of asshole, so I see no reason to assume he is. Not every period of silence is the “silent treatment”, and responding after someone apologized isn’t the same as not responding until they apologized.

Of the things to get upset about with tiger woods, this communication thing is an odd one.
Someone makes a joke. You chuckle and go back to what you were doing, or you don’t chuckle and still go back to what you were doing. They send another message that makes you realize they expected a response and took your lack of response the wrong way, so you reply telling them you knew they were joking.

Not every message needs a reply, to say nothing of an immediate one. How would you have had him reply?

Do you reply to every message immediately?

Yeah, so your phone is definitely using the modern iteration of generative AI for the features you’re defending. By “hilariously old” I meant more along the lines of “2014”. It is exactly what I was talking about when I was talking about smartphone AI features.
It kinda feels like your problem with modern AI is less the ethical issues and more the results you get from it, with the way that you’re defending it in the use case you like by saying it’s a different type.

As for your odd attack on an academic field: none of those things existed when the departments were founded. Those were all the names for the grants they proposed that led to them creating those things.

Why do you have a hard time accepting that maybe a term has different meanings in different contexts, and using that as the basis for your criticism is shallow compared to any of the other incredibly valid reasons to criticize how it’s built, supported, marketed, used or advertised?

Ah, yes. The only bit of marketing terminology that has multiple high profile university research labs dedicated to it since the 50s.

literally no definition for intelligence that is broadly accepted

You’re conflating human intelligence with what it means in computer science. We have no way of consistently and meaningfully ranking human intelligence. The intelligence being referred to in AI is not the same thing. It’s not even comparing apples to oranges. It’s comparing the abstract notion of a triangle to a rabbit.
You may as well say “signals intelligence doesn’t exist because we can’t define intelligence”.

Calling things techno babble doesn’t help you look like someone who knows what they’re talking about making a distinction.

The “AI” retouching in my phone is not prone to hallucination. It predates the hallucination machines. It just does stuff like (mostly) smoothly removing things like strung cable in photos and that kind of stuff, or does some pretty splendid night time photography.

I hate to break it to you, but that’s largely generative AI. You haven’t mentioned your phone specifically, but the features in question are at least quite similar to googles magic eraser and night sight features.
Unless your phone is hilariously old, it doesn’t predate googles use and development of generative AI.
In one sentence you say it doesn’t hallucinate, and the next you say it “mostly” smoothly removes things. First, where do you think it’s getting what’s behind what it removed? Second, what do you think is happening when it fails to get it right?
The computational photography features are largely a machine learning model being applied to techniques used by traditional photographers.

If you want to use them, I don’t care. Just don’t pretend they’re fundamentally any different than using Photoshop AI tools to do the same thing. It’s not. You’re using an AI based tool to do something that someone else is doing by hand. It’s trained on a dataset pulled from every picture on earth ever uploaded to the Internet.
Your perfectly color calibrated hdr+ photo without any weird stuff blocking the sky doesn’t get the same credit as a person who meticulously composited and exposed a set of film photos for those bits.

Not to be a serial contrarian, but I’d say what’s being “shilled” as AI today is just as much AI as the AI of yesterday. Which is to say intelligent in the sense of “responsive to environmental changes”, not “sentient or sapient”.
Autocorrect, red eye reduction, and white balance correction are all different types of AI. So is the tuning function on most decent rice cookers. (Depending on the retouch feature you mean it actually could be from the modern AI wave. It started with images because humans notice a 10% gibberish rate in text, but we don’t see a 10% error rate when removing a ketchup stain)

I don’t think we’re actually in disagreement, but I think in this particular threads context it’s implicit that the intention of “fuck AI” isn’t “fuck my rice cooker and its weight/heat interpolation function”.

People feel that same way about any tool, and get a sense of dismissiveness towards people how use them. I usually don’t care about the tools people use as long as they don’t try to take credit for the part they didn’t do. Whittling and using a lathe are different skill levels when making a table leg, and I won’t be impressed by your radial symmetry if you used a lathe, but I can still like the table leg.
The biggest difference is that I don’t think there’s any generalized ethical issues with lathes that need to be addressed.

Getting upset about someone being open about using the tool, or even not being open about using it, is like getting hung up on questions of who gets credit for the symmetry of a table leg when the carpenter used a lathe powered by a live puppy grinder.

Sure. But that doesn’t mean you can’t compare musk to Rockefeller or use him as a benchmark.

Using someone as a known benchmark doesn’t mean they were good or bad, just that they’re an established quantity. Rockefeller was wealthy beyond normal levels of wealth. It makes sense to use him as a comparison.

I don’t think that’s wrong, but from the other direction.
They’re both tools, and as long as you’re open about what it actually means to use the tool and what you actually did I don’t see an issue.

Sometimes 3D printing is as creative as printing someone else’s design. Sometimes the creativity is a modeling and design problem. Sometimes it’s a machine operation skill.

AI tools can be “write a book” or “draw me a cat”, which isn’t much , or it could used to do spot touch ups in a photo, or get feedback on a written work.

Doing something with or without different tools has different advantages and disadvantages, and changes the criteria that you judge it by.
Some people feel the same way about digital cameras or cell phone cameras. I don’t think the device picking the exposure time and white balance makes it not your picture, it just means I’m not being impressed by your color pallet, but instead your subject and composition.

To me that’s the least annoying part of AI at the moment. I’m open to the notion that you can be creative with tools that remove parts of the challenge, you just don’t get credit for the challenge.

At my local store they seem to comfortably replace 1 cashier with four quick self checkouts, and 3-4 with 2 rows of 6-8.

People dislike them, but it gets a little silly when they insist they have lower throughput too.

I believe the distinction is usually criminal vs non criminal charges usually. Most criminal things require you to have intended to do the bad thing. That doesn’t mean that you intended the outcome, just the act that caused it.
If you intentionally kill someone: murder. If you intentionally attack someone and they die: a lesser type of murder. If you deliberately decide to not maintain some tall thing and it falls and kills someone: negligent manslaughter.
If you’re on a construction site using a nail gun and you follow your training and check what’s behind stuff and put up rope to keep people out of where you can’t see and a nail misses a stud and hits someone killing them: tragic accident. You didn’t intentionally do anything wrong.

For civil things they can often just argue that you caused harm, so you’re responsible for some portion of it. That usually doesn’t apply to retail theft because “left with paper towel unpaid, we stopped them and took back the paper towel” doesn’t actually have any harm. There’s nothing to fix.

While there’s definitely dick baggery in retail theft prevention and store security, I have my doubts that the people complaining here about it at the self checkout are actually the victims of it.

Yup, that’s the precedent bit I mentioned. They’re both valid ways of deciding ambiguity (a judge decides in this situation and other judges aren’t obligated to decide the same way, or lawyers debate the ambiguity, a jury decides, and courts strive for consistency), but they’re fundamentally different and slightly bewildering to people from the other model.

Purely an answer to the question "I mean, how different could they really be?”: fundamentally different in an almost unrecognizable way.

I don’t know how the German appeals system works, but there is a lot of room for difference.

A particular reading spree once caused me to learn that the UK, a modern civilized country, didn’t have what we would call a supreme court until 2009.
Their laws aren’t codified. We have a big book o’ laws, and we pass bills that modify the book. If it’s not in the book it’s not a law. They pass bills that are the laws. This sounds really similar until you consider that “the law” is a collection of every act of parliament going back nearly a thousand years, many of which cancel out others. Oh, and that extends to the concept of a “constitution”.

Some quick searching shows that Germany uses a fundamentally different legal model that views our big book o’ laws as unstructured because courts have a binding say in interpretation of the law. It seems that this regional court can be appealed, and also that their courts don’t use precedent like ours do, so an appeal is more like a second opinion than an escalation.
Judges are less referee and more investigator, so you can claim that the judge made a mistake with their decision, which is appeal.

What? That doesn’t even make sense. Being shitty makes you shitty, not thinking it’s shitty to be shitty.

You’re essentially sweeping all negative behavior under the rug of “confusion”.
Yes, he was wrong. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t also shitty.

If I recall correctly, they think he was wise, and that he brought a message from God that superceded the old rules, but that he wasn’t the son of God or a part of some divine Trinity.
They then believe that Mohammed was likewise a messenger who brought a new set of rules that obsoleted the ones Jesus brought.

So if I recall correctly, Judaism is to Christianity as Christianity is to Islam. It’s just disagreement over which PR to accept.

“Just” seems a weak word to use for the scope of the conflict, but I think that’s the heart of it.

Yes, I will just take your word for it over the word of the original people involved.

You keep talking about DARPA, when they’re not the same organization that backed ARPANET. Arpanet came before laws were passed saying DARPA could only fund projects directly related to defense.