Yeah except you are just completely ahistorical and wrong. The preponderance of evidence supports my position not yours.

I agree, and it’s also what the majority of lemmings advocate for. It’s an unpopular opinion here.

No Josie, I think you’ve got 💯 the right of it and that your downvoters are all idiots. I’ve caught multiple bans here, there and elsewhere specifically making the exact points you are right now. So most importantly I want you to know you aren’t alone, and you’ve got friends here that both agree with you, and have also suffered the slings and arrows the, frankly reactionary, Lemmy userbase.

It’s a fucked system and your vote is the only thing you have. Withholding it for some kind of policy position is literally the only thing that has been demonstrated to be effective at moving political actors over the previous 20 years of politics. You are making the right choice.

It’s interesting the way this all gets framed. That effectively,limitless political boundary is cheerleaded. There is a subtext here that only those who can court billions with a B should or ever will be viable on a national stage.

Well that’s your prerogative. You can’t move politicians if you just hand off your leverage.

No worries. I just read it. They have a better grasp of things than you do, and most definitely better than the downvoters.

I’m on team @RangerJosie@sffa.community

give me the cliffnotes

To be clear, it’s not the job of voters to be cheerleading sycophants for “team”.

Lemmy doesn’t really have a strong grasp of the importance of not supporting politicians or parties blindly. It’s important to be critical of them, their policies, their approach, everything.

We didn’t give ourselves a shot in this election carrying water blindly. In fact, those who were (the downvoters to op’s comment) were enabling and empowering Trump. In-fact Lemmy moderation even went as far as enacting bans to support this narrow and now demonstrated to be wrong approach to electoralism. What gave us a shot this cycle was a small cohort making a difficult but obvious point that we need to hold our candidates accountable, and if they aren’t acceptable, to reject them.

So I haven’t looked at the policies, but it’s awful late. It sounds like OP thinks they are vague. This was a real problem that we learned under Obama is that we can’t trust them to follow through with things in spirit; we need it in ink, or ideally in blood. Harris is clearly campaigning to the right and looking for Republicans rather than the left to carry her through. This has been shown to be a repeatedly terrible electoral strategy since 2012.

Secretly doing a illegitimate amount of lifting I that headline.

Ikr? It really seems like the dismissiveness is coming from people either not experienced with it, or just politically angry at its existence.

I mean I’ve been doing this for 20 years and have led teams from 2-3 in size to 40. I’ve been the lead on systems that have had to undergo legal review at a state level, where the output literally determines policy for almost every home in a state. So you can be as dismissive or enthusiastic as you like. I could truly actually give a shit about ley opinion cus I’m out here doing this, building it, and I see it every day.

For any one with ears to listen, dismiss this current round at your at your own peril.

Yeah I skimmed a bit. I’m on like 4 hours of in flight sleep after like 24 hours of air ports and flying. If you really want me to address the points of the paper, I can, but I can also tell it doesn’t diminish my primary point: dismiss at your own peril.

This is why polling sucks, or rather, that scientific polling can’t account for what it can’t account for. Unlikely voters, have never voted previously, where why Trump did so much better than his polling showed in 2016 and 2020.

Don’t sleep on him.

We can finally get back to leftist infighting

Of all of the candidates, he is one.

idk why but I’m reminded of this

Dismiss at your own peril is my mantra on this. I work primarily in machine vision and the things that people were writing on as impossible or “unique to humans” in the 90s and 2000s ended up falling rapidly, and that generation of opinion pieces are now safely stored in the round bin.

The same was true of agents for games like go and chess and dota. And now the same has been demonstrated to be coming true for languages.

And maybe that paper built in the right caveats about “human intelligence”. But that isn’t to say human intelligence can’t be surpassed by something distinctly inhuman.

The real issue is that previously there wasn’t a use case with enough viability to warrant the explosion of interest we’ve seen like with transformers.

But transformers are like, legit wild. It’s bigger than UNETs. It’s way bigger than ltsm.

So dismiss at your own peril.

Again, dismiss at your own peril.

Because “Integrate two badly documented APIs” is precisely the kind of tasks that even the current batch of LLMs actually crush.

And I’m not worried about being replaced by the current crop. I’m worried about future frameworks on technology like greyskull running 30, or 300, or 3000 uniquely trained LLMs and other transformers at once.

Machine learning scientist.

I think you live in a nonsense world. I literally use it everyday and yes, sometimes it’s shit and it’s bad at anything that even requires a modicum of creativity. But 90% of shit doesn’t require a modicum of creativity. And my point isn’t about where we’re at, it’s about how far the same tech progressed on another domain adjacent task in three years.

Lemmy has a “dismiss AI” fetish and does so at its own peril.