Oh wow, didnt realise molotovs are illegal. Obv theyre illegal to use on someone, but merely possessing one being illegal is absurd. Seeing as that is off the table, yeah it seems a firearm is the way to go. Those seem less personal though, and they dont do much to obscure your location so return fire is to be expected. I guess my only advise there is to use hollow point so you dont shoot your neighbors.
Not everyone has an AR nor the neccassary training to use one safely. You cant possibly fuck up a molotov, and it has the benefit of blinding the aggressor which dramatically reduces chances of you recieving return fire. Yeah, fire is a risk, but it sends a pewerful message. I dont think you could get away with putting maga heads on spikes outside your house, so the vague smell of burning flesh might give any further aggressors a clue.
Downvotes mean nothing other than stifle conversations on lemmy anyways, and fortunately i woke up to find that a bunch fo people were willing to have pretty solid discussions on the matter. All in all, it definitely seems people here are more willing to doscuss the problems than somewhere like c/fuckai
I learned something and i like to think i got people thinking, so id say it was worthwhile :)
Im not entirely convinced this is accurate. I do see your point and i had not considered that there is no more training data to use, but at the end of the day our current ai is just pattern recognition. Hence, would you not be able to use a hybrid system where you set up billions of use cases(translate point a to point b, apply a force such that object a rolls a specified distance, set up a neural network using backpropogation with 3 hidden layers, etc) and then have two adversarial ais. One of which attempts to “solve” that use case by randomly trying stuff, and the other basically just says “youre not doing good enough and heres why”. Once your first is doing a good job with that very specific use case, index it. Now when people ask for that specifc use case or a larger problem that includes that use case, you dont even need AI. You just plug in the already solved solution. Now your code base becomes basically just AI filling out wvery possibly question on stack overflow.
Obviously this isnt actual coding with AI, at the end of the day youre still doing all the heavy lifting. Its effectively no different from how most coders code today, just steal code from stack overflow XD the only difference would be that stack overflow is basically filled with every conceivable question, and if youre isnt answered, you can just request that they set up a new set of ad ais to solve the new problem.
Secondarily, you are the first person to give me a solid reason as to why the current pardigm is unworkable. Despite my mediocre recall i have spent most of my life studying AI well before all this llm stuff, so i like to think i was at least well educated on the topic at one point. I appreciate your response. I am somewhat curious about what architecture changes need to be made to allow for actual problem solving. The entire point of a nerual network is to replicate the way we think, so why do current AIs only seem to be good at pattern recognition and not even the most basic of problem solving? Perhaps the architecture is fine, but we simply need to train up generational ais that specifically focus on problem solving instead of pattern recog?
Yeah bro, america has lost. That happened a couple years ago. It hasnt been safe for minorities or lgbt for quite some time.
Everybodys gangsta til they catch a molotov cocktail to the face. A ring camera, a fire extinguisher. Hard to shoot someone when youre on fire. And you should know theyre coming. The moment anyone enters the threshold, neutralize them. If you want to be a good Samaritan ensure they cant threaten anyone else.
Ok i doubt anyone is going to be willing to have this discussion, but here i am. My assessment is as follows: it would seem to me that to be of value, “ai” doesnt need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than the average programmer. If it can produce the same quality code twice as fast, or if it can produce code thats twice as good in the same amount of time. If I want it to code me a video game, i would personally judge it by how well it does against what i would expect from human programmers. Currently there is no comparison, im no coding expert but even i find myself correcting ai for even the simplest of code, but thats only temporary. Ten years ago this tech didnt even exist, ten years from now(assuming it doesnt crash our economy in more ways than one) i would imagine the software will at least be comparable to an entry level programmer.
I guess what Im getting at is that people rail against ai for faults that a human would make worse. Like self driving cars, having seen human drivers i am definitely wanting that tech to work out. Obviously its ideal for it to be perfect and coordinate with other smart cars to reduce traffic loads and inprove safety for everyone. But as long as its safer than a human driver, i would prefer it. As long as it codes better than your average overworked unpaid programmer, it becomes a useful tool.
That being said, I do see tons of legitimate reasons to dislike AI, especially in its current form. A lot, id say most, of those issues dont actually lie with AI at all, or even with llms. Most of the issues ive heard with AI development are actually thinly veiled complaints about capitalism, which is objectively failing even without AI. The others are mostly complaints about the current state of the tech, which i find to be less valid. Its like complaining that your original ipod didnt have lidar built in like they do now. Nixing the capitalism issue about how this tech will be used, and how its currently being funded, and its environmental impacts, and the fact that this level of research is unsustainable and will collapse the economy, give the tech time and it will mature. That almost feels like sarcasm given those very real issues, but again, those are all capitlism issues. If we were serious about saving our planet, a guardian AI that automatically drone strikes sorices of intense pollution would go a long way. If youre worried about robots takin yer jerbs, try not being capitalism-pilled and realise that humans got by for eons without jobs or class structures. Post scarcity is almost mandatory under proper AI, and capitlism exists to ensure that post scarcity cant happen.
Doubtful. If you still have ads in 2026 you never valued your own time, software, or consent anyways.
Well, they highjacked a plane at the start of the second movie iirc so…
Sudoku?
Ah, the american healthcare system is to blame! /s
This is a rare case where something being marked nsfw makes me more uncomfortable. I couldve pictured this as safe for work damn you!
Thats a bold assumption to make knowing i suck at this lol
Upon closer inspection, now it looks like the guy from the TIL youtube channel. Given my skillz, probably not him but im reasonably confident in saying theyre close probably
The real issue has been going on since the 80s
Vsauce! Micheal here!
I have 0 facial recognition. I cant tell if thats a really old screenshot of micheal or not
True, but its not far off. I ran the math on minimum wage, the machine costs $2000 a month for maintance, whereas full time at minimum wage is 1200 a month. If the employee makes more than $12/h the machine would cost less for maintance. That is ignoring the upfront cost of $20,000-$30,000, but the nature of fast food with its low employee retention and high burnout rate means the upfront costs would likely be worthwhile for companies like mcdonalds. Not having to go through the hiring process would save a fair bit of money id imagine, though i have no clue how much.
Its also worth noting that these machines are way more expensive than they need to be, because they are kept artificially high because the payoff for buying one is so large. Companies REALLY want automation, and theyre willing to pay top dollar to get it because it means they dont need slaves anymore. Same with the maintance, there is about a zero percent chance it legitimately costs the maintance company anywhere in the astronomical ballpark of $2000 a month to maintain the machines.
Okay, so the rest of this is just theory crafting based on logical reasoning, but id like to hear your take. Quickly googling, it shows that we have succesfully mapped the neurons in one millimeter of mouse brain, and it had about 200,000 cells (neural nodes). Thats a lot of neural nodes to emulate, let alone the connections. It would seem to me that its far easier to customize our hardware. Mossfets dont strike me as up to the task, so it would seem to me that the future of ai lies in growing actual neurons and training them. You would achieve a much higher neural density that way, and the work is already being done to make that tech feasible.
Basically, do you think its a hardware issue?