Because religion evolved to thrive in us.

It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.

Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.

Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.

This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.

This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.

And this wasn’t just any but fuck man. It was the “perfect but fuck man I love”!

Right, thanks for the corrections.

In case of GAN, it’s stupidly simple why AI detection does not take off. It can only be half a cycle ahead (or behind), at any time.

Better AI detectors train better AI generators. So while technically for a brief moment in time the advantage exists, the gap is immediately closed again by the other side; they train in tandem.

This does not tell us anything about non-GAN though, I think. And most AI is not GAN, right?

As with other AI-enhanced jobs, that probably still means less jobs in the long run.

Now one artist can make more art in the same time, or produce different styles which previously had required different artists.

And this is why AI detector software is probably impossible.

What exactly is “this”?

Just about everything we make computers do is something we’re also capable of; slower, yes, and probably less accurately or with some other downside, but we can do it. We at least know how.

There are things computers can do better than humans, like memorizing, or precision (also both combined). For all the rest, while I agree in theory we could be on par, in practice it matters a lot that things happen in reality. There often is only a finite window to analyze and react and if you’re slower, it’s as good as if you knew nothing. Being good / being able to do something often means doing it in time.

We can’t program software or train neutral networks to do something that we have no idea how to do.

Machine learning does that. We don’t know how all these layers and neurons work, we could not build the network from scratch. We cannot engineer/build/create the correct weights, but we can approach them in training.

Also look at Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). The adversarial part is literally to train a network to detect bad AI generated output, and tweak the generative part based on that error to produce better output, rinse and repeat. Note this by definition includes a (specific) AI detector software, it requires it to work.

Right? A self-assessed skill which is never tested is a funny thing anyways. It boils down to “I believe I’m good at it because I believe my belief is correct”. Which in itself is shady, but then there are also incentives that people rather believe to be good, and those who don’t probably rather don’t speak up that much. Personally, I believe people lack the competence to make statements like these with any significant meaning.

Thanks again, though just for the record, that didn’t help either. It’s alright, I’m used to the Thunderbird lags. Let’s stop here :)

Heh, true! Although I appreciated Brackeys using his reach to set things into perspective. Raising awareness about systemic issues with for-profit development, showing alternatives exist, and why they are better for everyone. I thought this was especially interesting for fediversers.

“For agencies like the FTC to seriously consider action, there has to be harm to customers. But the sneaky formula that mobile developers have pioneered is one where the app itself is free, and the gameplay technically does exist in the application, so where’s the harm? Any rEaSoNaBlE viewer won’t be harmed. They will see and uninstall, and there’s disclosures, so who cares? But these companies aren’t targeting ‘the reasonable customers’, they are targeting the people with addictive personalities who get easily sucked in from a deceptive ad to a predatory product.”

Damn, that’s insane and evil. Like a drug cartel distributing free candies after school, with crystal meth inside. They just weather the storm, well knowing a few “customers” will stick.

I still don’t understand how this can work so well, which apparently it does given the numbers and scale. I have questions:

• Why bother making a “main product” at all, if people come for the mini game? Why not make the mini game addictive and predatory, save even more development costs and get less negative reviews as a bonus? Like, why bother with the candy when you can legally sell meth?
• Why is this exclusive to the mobile market? The same games, ads and arguments could be made for any other platform with “free”, downloadable content like PC. Why don’t they share their crack candies at college?

Then let me spell it out: If ChatGPT convinces a child to wash their hands with self-made bleach, be sure to expect lawsuits and a shit storm coming for OpenAI.

If that occurs, but no liability can be found on the side of ChatGPT, be sure to expect petitions and a shit storm coming for legislators.

We generally expect individuals and companies to behave in society with peace and safety in mind, including strangers and minors.

Liabilities and regulations exist for these reasons.

Do car manufacturers get in trouble when someone runs somebody over?

Yes, if it can be shown the accident was partially caused by the manufacturer’s neglect. If a safety measure was not in place or did not work properly. Or if it happens suspiciously more often with models from this brand. Apart from solid legal trouble, they can get into PR trouble if many people start to think that way, no matter if it’s true.

If it has the information, why not?

Naive altruistic reply: To prevent harm.

Cynic reply: To prevent liabilities.

If the restaurant refuses to put your fries into your coffee, because that’s not on the menu, then that’s their call. Can be for many reasons, but it’s literally their business, not yours.

If we replace fries with fuse, and coffee with gun powder, I hope there are more regulations in place. What they sell and to whom and in which form affects more people than just buyer and seller.

Although I find it pretty surprising corporations self-regulate faster than lawmakers can say ‘AI’ in this case. That’s odd.

I’m from your camp but noticed I used ChatGPT and the like less and less over the past months. I feel they became less and less useful and more generic. In Februar or March, they were my go to tools for many tasks. I reverted back to old-fashioned search engines and other methods, because it just became too tedious to dance around the ethics landmines, to ignore the verbose disclaimers, to convince the model my request is a legit use case. Also the error ratio went up by a lot. It may be a tame lapdog, but it also lacks bite now.

Interesting, may I ask you a question regarding uncensored local / censored hosted LLMs in comparison?

There is this idea censorship is required to some degree to generate more useful output. In a sense, we somehow have to tell the model which output we appreciate and which we don’t, so that it can develop a bias to produce more of the appreciated stuff.

In this sense, an uncensored model would be no better than a million monkeys on typewriters. Do we differentiate between technically necessary bias, and political agenda, is that possible? Do uncensored models produce more nonsense?

However, I think people should experiment with what I call “open source universes”, which is basically creating shared universes that are open source. Maybe even make some open source RPG system with it too, so we could have an open source alternative to the likes of D&D, WH40k, etc. At one point I tried to make something like this, but the issue was that it was based on an old webcomic idea of mine, which I started working on when I had totally different views on many things. Might revisit it with different ideas later on.

Haven’t played any of those, but I think they (and more) exist for a long time already: https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Open_Game_Systems

They’re used to a decade or longer on Twitter and Facebook. So any new and improved protocol would split the user base and so struggle to gain traction.

Could that be an inherent issue, no matter how you approach it? The issue might be that any social IT system which gains traction is already 10 years outdated. If true, it would mean we could start making something new now, which might be popular in 10 years, but then unable to effectively deal with whatever people deem essential in 10 years.

A suitcase-sized, passive desalination device also sounds like a must-have for boats of all sizes, if they spend more than a few hours on sea.

Sounds like a great thing to include in your resume if you want them to hire you to keep working on it. Assuming theirs is better and succeeds.

What’s wrong with desalination research? Water is essential to life, and most water on Earth is salinated. The practical value of this research is apparent, both for ships on sea and coastal regions. So I don’t see how these attempts are “worthless”, and how it would be bad if they receive more “free money”.

The article talks about what could have been a challenge faced by the junkyard scrap model, and how they solved it:

Each stage contained an evaporator and a condenser that used heat from the sun to passively separate salt from incoming water. That design, which the team tested on the roof of an MIT building, efficiently converted the sun’s energy to evaporate water, which was then condensed into drinkable water. But the salt that was left over quickly accumulated as crystals that clogged the system after a few days. In a real-world setting, a user would have to place stages on a frequent basis, which would significantly increase the system’s overall cost.

In a follow-up effort, they devised a solution with a similar layered configuration, this time with an added feature that helped to circulate the incoming water as well as any leftover salt. While this design prevented salt from settling and accumulating on the device, it desalinated water at a relatively low rate.

In the latest iteration, the team believes it has landed on a design that achieves both a high water-production rate, and high salt rejection, meaning that the system can quickly and reliably produce drinking water for an extended period. The key to their new design is a combination of their two previous concepts: a multistage system of evaporators and condensers, that is also configured to boost the circulation of water — and salt — within each stage.

I’m not sure how much money is in desalination, but it’s certainly an industry. If a group comes up with a new method, and then nothing happens with it, it’s probably because it’s either not that great after all, or not that cost effective.

Maybe a problem is that the countries where it’s needed the most are not exactly the richest countries: https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress#what-share-of-freshwater-resources-do-we-use

several countries across the Middle East, North Africa & South Asia have extremely high levels of water stress. Many, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Syria, Pakistan, Libya have withdrawal rates well in excess of 100 percent — this means they are either extracting unsustainably from existing aquifer sources, or produce a large share of water from desalinisation.

I appreciated the advice! Found the setting, which was indeed low. Raised it to 200 MB and to require manual confirmation. Today I was asked if I want to compress. The sad part is, the freezes continued in between. So this was not the cause, but thank you still.