• Lightor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Ahhh yes, the old “reading on paper is big brain individual, reading on phone is mindless.”

    • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Same with “communicating over the internet isn’t real communication.”

      I’m not saying that there aren’t problems with how much we’re communicating over the internet and how little we’re communicating in real life, but the vast majority of humans in history would have considered the ability to send text messages to someone on the other side of the world in less than a second to be reserved for the gods above.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        For real! This is like saying “telegrams are destroying our youth” back in the day.

        Sure, real human interaction has value, but the ability to text someone on the other side of the planet instantly and have it translated is a huge leap forward not brain rot.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 hours ago

    AI has the free time to study and be artistic. Not us. We must pay to exist.

    What rent does the AI pay? Nothing.

    No internet bill, no transportation bill, no phone bill, no food bill, no Healthcare/insurance bill.

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      internet and housing do cost money for those running the model, as does the “food” (electricity). healthcare is achieved by taking it behind the barn, transportation is unnecessary, as are phones.

    • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      AI also isn’t studying or being artistic. It has no real awareness of the concepts it’s seemingly learning, at least not yet. AI as of right now is basically just statistical analysis of human-made information and art and predictive modelling of how a human might respond to a given prompt.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        AI as of right now

        AI for the forseeable future

        No need to mince words. Far too much of this terrible hype surrounding it is built on pure speculation of a future that we have no hard evidence is approaching. Just bold claims by people financially invested in selling the hype.

    • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Someday, if it can sustain itself, it would need to pay for a living.

      Right now, someone wants to have an AI. The person pays for it like a pet. But its too expensive, so it needs to give something in return.

      We will see if it really benefited the energy costs and internet costs for those Companies who use intense amount of resources for AI.

  • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    everyone keep focussing on the using phone part and missed the part where the humans are still doing menial labor while the robots are doing what people would do to enjoy themselves.

    • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      while the robots are doing what people would do to enjoy themselves.

      and for the specific purpose of increasing profit margins of media companies who no longer have to pay artists and writers

      If generative AI was merely a computer science endeavour, the 1% wouldn’t be investing this heavily in it.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Young man was walking down our road the other night, absorbed in his phone and meandering away from the side. I went by at 5mph over the speed limit, with plenty of clearance, and he threw his arms in the universal statement, “What the fuck?!”

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Physics Quiz:
      Annoying Anne is driving through a residential area at exactly the limit of 20 mph.
      A child jumps into the street.
      Anne reacts as fast as humanly possible and manages to stop the car right before she’d hit the child.

      Normal Norman is driving through the same residential area at 25 mph, just 5mph over the limit.
      A child jumps into the street at the exact same distance as before.
      Norman reacts exactly as fast as Anne, and has the same car, tires and brakes.
      How fast will Norman’s car be when he hits the child?

      Answer

      25mph

      • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Human reaction time is ~0.25 seconds.
        At 20 mph, you’re going ~29 ft per second, so you go ~7.3 ft before you can react.
        At 25 mph, that’s ~37 ft per second, so ~9.2 ft before you can react.

        The internet says a good car can break at about 15 f/s^2.
        At 29 f/s, that comes out to a stopping distance of ~28 ft.
        At 37 f/s, that’s ~46 ft.

        So Anne, who’s annoying for some reason, needs a total of ~35 ft to stop just before hitting the child.
        Norman needs ~9 ft to start decelerating, so by the time he reaches the 35 ft mark (after ~26 ft of hitting the brakes,) it’s been a total of ~0.98 seconds, and he is going ~26 f/s, which is ~18 miles per hour.

    • hOrni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Well being the driver You are the one responsible for not hitting the pedestrian. So speeding next to a pedestrian at night makes you an asshole.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        5mph over is a quick walking speed. 25 vs. 20 sound terribly dangerous to you?

        And it’s not like I barely missed the guy. We were well apart. Point being, he was mad at me because he had his head up his ass and wasn’t paying attention.

        If y’all think it’s reasonable to walk down a dark street, head all up in your phone, go ahead. It is indeed the driver’s responsibility to dodge you.

        Reminds me of my gf’s best friend back in the day. Drove like a maniac, dared anyone to hit her. “Fuck you! I’ll get a new car!”

        And a lifetime of pain, or at worst, a Darwin Award. But hey! It was the other guy’s fault!

        • hOrni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Again. You, driving the dangerous machine must avoid harming people. It’s not the pedestrian’s responsibility to dodge cars. 5mph is almost 10kmph which would make You lose Your license in some places in Europe.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 hours ago

        it drives me insane when people argue that unprotected trafficants (translated from the swedish term because lazy) doing something wrong absolves drivers of all guilt, motherfucker the law very clearly states that it’s illegal to hurt people, context does not matter and if there is something you could have reasonably done to prevent or lessen the damage you are legally obliged to do it.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 hours ago

          No one, least of all me, is arguing the pedestrian doing something stupid absolves the driver. Ever heard of the Darwin Awards? When you’re dead, it doesn’t really matter who was right or wrong.

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Every time I see something like this I’m reminded of Plato recording Socrates’ whinging that books are destroying society and no one can remember anything anymore.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Damn smartphones, ruining society!

      Damn internet, ruining society!

      Damn computers, ruining society!

      Damn VIDYA GAMES, ruining society!

      Damn TV, ruining society!

      Damn radio, ruining society!

      Damn Newspapers, ruining society!

      Damn 2 piece swimsuits, ruining society!

      Damn books, ruining society!

      Damn clay tablets, ruining society!

      Damn language, ruining society!

      Damn alphabet, ruining society!

      Damn humans, ruining society!

      Damn society, ruining society!

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 hours ago

          I’d say that’s more to do with dropping stigma leading to better/more reporting rather than smartphones being some major cause of mental health issues. I’m sure they do cause some issues, but probably not much more than any other vice

          • flicker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 hours ago

            And there’s a lot of things that were just straight up not recognized.

            People bitch about how there’s “more” ADHD, but when I was a kid, the prevailing knowledge was that girls don’t have ADHD. Cue the meteoric “rise” in cases.

            (There’s a million other things I could’ve used as an example but I used ADHD because I wasn’t diagnosed until I was 36.)