I think the first stat in the graph is the most important one and really speaks to the reason for the last one. I said this is another post about this article, but video games have become their own kind of third space. Going out with friends has become so expensive, whether you’re going to a movie or something else, and in a lot of places you can’t go to hang out without having to spend money anyways, so video games have become a replacement way to hang out with friends. And that’s before you start talking about stuff like friends who moved across the country for work or something.

On the one hand, yes, and Fandom is a blight on the internet.

On the other hand, AI like ChatGPT are wrong some 53% of the time. The fact that this is another “use nontoxic glue to keep your cheese from falling off of pizza” situation doesn’t mean that Google isn’t equally culpable for doing nothing to prevent these sorts of occurrences even when the sources are right (AI is as likely to make things up that aren’t even in its cited sources as it is to actually give you info from them).

There’s definitely studies on it. I don’t know how they measure them, but it’s all about the number and type of cones in your eyes because there are a few different types that see different colors. This is why tigers are orange - because their prey lack the cones that see red, so the tigers look like the rest of the background foliage.

I’ve heard that women have more cones in their eyes as well, which leads to a more nuanced sense of differentiation between colors.

Didn’t you know? According to Republicans, “Reality has a liberal bias.”

Another Millennial here, so take that how you will, but I agree. I think that Gen Z is very tech literate, but only in specific areas that may not translate to other areas of competency that are what we think of when we say “tech savvy” - especially when you start talking about job skills.

I think Boomers especially see anybody who can work a smartphone as some sort of computer wizard, while the truth is that Gen Z grew up with it and were immersed in the tech, so of course they’re good with it. What they didn’t grow up with was having to type on a physical keyboard and monkey around with the finer points of how a computer works just to get it to do the thing, so of course they’re not as skilled at it.

Because we’re talking pattern recognition levels of learning. At best, they’re the equivalent of parrots mimicking human speech. They take inputs and output data based on the statistical averages from their training sets - collaging pieces of their training into what they think is the right answer. And I use the word think here loosely, as this is the exact same process that the Gaussian blur tool in Photoshop uses.

This matters in the context of the fact that these companies are trying to profit off of the output of these programs. If somebody with an eidetic memory is trying to sell pieces of works that they’ve consumed as their own - or even somebody copy-pasting bits from Clif Notes - then they should get in trouble; the same as these companies.

Given A and B, we can understand C. But an LLM will only be able to give you AB, A(b), and B(a). And they’ve even been just spitting out A and B wholesale, proving that they retain their training data and will regurgitate the entirety of copyrighted material.

Reminds me of when I read about a programmer getting turned down for a job because they didn’t have 5 years of experience with a language that they themselves had created 1 to 2 years prior.

The argument that these models learn in a way that’s similar to how humans do is absolutely false, and the idea that they discard their training data and produce new content is demonstrably incorrect. These models can and do regurgitate their training data, including copyrighted characters.

And these things don’t learn styles, techniques, or concepts. They effectively learn statistical averages and patterns and collage them together. I’ve gotten to the point where I can guess what model of image generator was used based on the same repeated mistakes that they make every time. Take a look at any generated image, and you won’t be able to identify where a light source is because the shadows come from all different directions. These things don’t understand the concept of a shadow or lighting, they just know that statistically lighter pixels are followed by darker pixels of the same hue and that some places have collections of lighter pixels. I recently heard about an ai that scientists had trained to identify pictures of wolves that was working with incredible accuracy. When they went in to figure out how it was identifying wolves from dogs like huskies so well, they found that it wasn’t even looking at the wolves at all. 100% of the images of wolves in its training data had snowy backgrounds, so it was simply searching for concentrations of white pixels (and therefore snow) in the image to determine whether or not a picture was of wolves or not.

The context that we’re talking about here isn’t somebody that you know personally and have permission from/are talking to mutual friends of. We’re talking about publicly announcing a stranger’s dead name to everybody who reads this post and the justification that it’s okay because they once had 15 minutes of internet fame from a video going viral before they transitioned. At best, it’s a paparazzi-esque invasion of privacy, and at worst, it’s straight up doxxing.

A. Hyperbole, look it up.

B. Why do you think it’s okay to dox people?

TIL the internet doesn’t understand hyperbole so long as it’s a trans person using it.

Did you miss the part about how my safety is dependent on going stealth? I moved somewhere where nobody knew me after transitioning for a reason. A stranger going around and telling random people my dead name would be like a stranger going around telling random people that a person is in witness protection and what their real name is. Again, your threat index isn’t universal.

The first rule of self-defense is that a battle not fought is a battle won. The second rule is if you have to hurt a man, you hurt him so bad that you need never fear his vengeance. If he can stand up, he can come right back at you.

Except that’s not at all what’s happening here. We’re not talking about somebody we know personally with their permission or anything, we’re talking about an actress who got into pornography after having an emotional video go viral many years ago. Her dead name has nothing to do with that, and if you had even left out the fact that she’s trans, most people probably could’ve figured it out if they even bothered to go check out the original video. Abd if they didn’t? It wouldn’t make a difference in their knowledge of the subject. They’d still know that a woman who had an emotional video go viral years ago later became a porn actress. All her dead name adds to this is a possibly paparazzi style invasion of her privacy.

Does it add any useful context, though? I don’t know either name but I do remember the “Leave Britney alone” video being a thing (and the fact that the person in the video turned out to be right all along when the truth about Britney’s situation came out years later), so the added context that she’s trans and what her dead name was is meaningless to me other than to say, “She used to be a man. She’s a woman now, but she was a man before. Did you know that? That she was once a man? Because she was. Here’s what her name was.”

As a trans woman, whose safety is so dependent on being able to go stealth in society, if I found out people were going around talking about me like this, I’d take a rusty icepick and make sure that they never think in words ever again. Lack of malicious intent doesn’t mean that no harm was caused. Your threat index is not universal.

This could have very easily been left at “Trans woman X got into porn after her viral video Y” and there would be all the context needed to figure out who they were and what video they were in without using their dead name. Hell, you probably wouldn’t even have to point out that she’s trans for people to figure it out. Cis people treat the privacy of trans people the same way that the paparazzi treats the privacy of celebrities.

So the way Tumblr works is that your account is basically a blog, with your home page on the site being populated with posts from the accounts that you follow. You can reblog posts onto your own account and comment on them to create individual conversation threads like this one. At one point, there was a bug in the edit post system that let you edit the entirety of a post when you reblogged it, including what other people had said previously, and even the original post. This would only affect your specific reblog of it, of course, but you could edit a post to say something completely different from the original and create a completely unrelated comment chain.

The question is whether or not Tumblr users would want such a thing.

I feel like the same thing will happen like when WordPress introduced a (bad) TikTok/streaming clone called Tumblr Live. I think less than 10% of the userbase ever interacted with it, most of the community openly hated it, and the people who did use it largely didn’t use Tumblr themselves.

I could see Tumblr users actively finding a way to defederate their blogs from everything Fediverse related.

This smells to me like WordPress reducing their workload more than anything since they own Tumblr (unless maybe there’s some sort of financial incentive to increasing the number of WordPress blogs?).

But also, considering that at one point in Tumblr’s history, you could edit other people’s posts, maybe it is an improvement.

It’s impossible to tell from a single photo, but it looks like the fire was possibly localized to the wheel-well. I can’t think of anything that might ignite in there, though.

I mean that crypto currencies are essentially the same as stocks. They have no worth on their own, and their value is tied to converting them to other currencies.

And this conversion rate fluctuates constantly. What one bitcoin is worth today is not what it will be worth tomorrow. In order to buy something with a crypto currency, companies have to first check how much it’s worth in fiat currency.