I think the point being made here is that many people clearly enjoy what Starbucks offers. So, saying they suck is preaching to the choir. The only people listening to that are the people you aren’t trying to convince. If you want an impact, suggest an alternative that will make those people happy. To do that, start with an understanding of the value Starbucks brings them. Failing that, you are just signaling that your thinking isn’t for them. They’ll just ignore you and continue to happily give Starbucks their money.

Many people’s entire thought process is an internal monologue. You think that voice is magic? It takes input and generates a conceptual internal dialogue based on what it’s previously experienced (training data for long term, context for short term). What do you mean when you say you understand something? What is the mechanism that your brain undergoes that’s defined as understanding?

Because for me it’s an internal conversation that asserts an assumption based on previous data and then attacks it with the next most probable counter argument systematically until what I consider a “good idea” emerges that is reasonably vetted. Then I test it in the real world by enacting the scientific process. The results are added to my long term memory (training data).

Seems like there are a lot of half baked ideas online about AI that seem to come from assumptions based on some sci-fi ideal or something. People are shocked that an artificial intelligence gets things wrong when they themselves have probably made a handful of incorrect assumptions today. This Tom Scott talk is a great explanation of how truth can never be programmed into anything. And will never really be obtainable to humanity in the foreseeable future.

Could not have said it better. The whole reason contemporary programs haven’t been able to adapt to the ambiguity of real world situations is because they require rigidly defined parameters to function. LLMs and AI make assumptions and act on shaky info - That’s the whole point. If people waited for complete understanding of every circumstance and topic, we’d constantly be trapped in indecision. Without the ability to test their assumptions in the real world, LLMs will be like children.

Did you just read the last sentence? Lol. AFTER proper education about the risks of lack of data privacy, if they still don’t care then so be it.

Well you are voting with your wallet, the only problem is you’ve been out voted. Honda makes good automotives and part of the “price” now is people giving them their data. People just don’t understand/care enough to not want to buy a Honda. If this were really a big deal to people it would open a place in the market for new automotive companies like Rivian, Lucid, or Polestar to gain massive ground by not doing this.

This is an education issue. We need to inform people about the dangers of a lack of data privacy. If they still don’t care, then so be it.

Well that’s exactly the point from my perspective. It’s really shitty here in the stage of technology where people are falling victim to this. So I really understand people’s knee jerk reaction to throw on the brakes. But then we’ll stay here where women are being harassed and bullied with this kind of technology. The only paths forward, theoretically, are to remove it all together or to make it ubiquitous background noise. Removing it all together, in my opinion, is practically impossible.

So my point is that a picture from an unverified source can never be taken as truth. But we’re in a weird place technologically, where unfortunately it is. I think we’re finally reaching a point where we can break free of that. If someone sends me a nude with my face on it like, “Is this you?!!”. I’ll send them one back with their face like, “Is tHiS YoU?!??!”.

We’ll be in a place where we as a society cannot function taking everything we see on the internet as truth. Not only does this potentially solve the AI nude problem, It can solve the actual nude leaks / revenge porn, other forms of cyberbullying, and mass distribution of misinformation as a whole. The internet hasn’t been a reliable source of information since its inception. The problem is, up until now, its been just plausible enough that the gullible fall into believing it.

Totally get your frustration, but people have been imagining, drawing, and photoshopping people naked since forever. To me the problem is if they try and pass it off as real. If someone can draw photorealistic pieces and drew someone naked, we wouldn’t have the same reaction, right?