this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
138 points (91.6% liked)

Technology

75258 readers
3468 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wieson@feddit.org 27 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Sorry, big derailment of subject here:

The author described 40cm of rain, which was unusual to me, since we normally describe the rain in millimetres.

Then they translated it to American as 16 inches or 70 gallons per square yard.

The neat thing about 400 mm is, that it's also 400 litres per square metre.

And it's also crazy much, my heart goes out to Valencia.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

The author described 40cm of rain, which was unusual to me, since we normally describe the rain in millimetres

That's the point of sensible units. It's exactly the same thing.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 10 months ago

The "how will we know if it's real" question has the same answer as it always has. Check if the source is reputable and find multiple reputable sources to see if they agree.

"Is there a photo of the thing" has never been a particularly great way of judging whether something is accurately described in the news. This is just people finding out something they should have already known.

If the concern is over the verifiability of the photos themselves, there are technical solutions that can be used for that problem.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago

And it’s gonna get worse, because it’s a very lucrative industry AND it’s highly effective for propaganda.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe we could stop giving a platform to the crazies that foster those stories. Both of them; the idiots that see ai artefacts everywhere but also the fear mongers of the sort of the blog here. It reminds me of « be afraid of rpgs » in the 80ies and then « videos games are going to turn teens in murderers » in the 90ies… every new tech has curves for their maturity, cultural & societal fit. We just so happen to be at the shitty times for ai. But eventually the fad will go away, most crazies will move to something else and attention whores will also find a new niche.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

every new tech has curves for their maturity, cultural & societal fit.

I'd believe this "nothing to see here" narrative if recent "advances" such as social media didn't have measurable negative impacts. Things can get worse, and technology can assist that.

The voices coming out as skeptical of things, and the watchdogs telling you early on that these newly introduced things may present a problem are ultimately part of the apparatus that gets you "cultural and societal fit". That doesn't happen automatically and it's called "the bleeding edge" for a reason.

Ultimately, I'm also not so sure about AI being a fad at this point. It sure looks like enough capital is invested in this stuff to make it be a thing even if nobody wants it.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The photo seems off somehow, I wonder if it is taken with a phone with some kind of AI sharpening algorithm.

[–] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 2 points 10 months ago

i’ve seen another trend lately where any edited photo gets labelled as AI, even when traditional editing methods are more likely