ragebutt

joined 7 months ago
[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This is true but he would do something like this, force everyone to be unhappy, and just eat the now illegal food. He would do it blatantly. He would take photo ops signing executive orders with matchbox cars and McDonald’s cups on his desk and then blame a staffer for leaving them there when everyone, including his die hards, would 100% know that moments before they shoved that placard into his hand he was chugging Diet Coke and making that car do sweet jumps. But then the die hards, knowing he was full of shit, would push the narrative that someone else did it, and twist it (deepfakes, never happened, etc) until they started to believe it themselves.

Then the media would call it some stupid shit like sodagate and snopes would have an article like did Donald trump actually drink soda and play with toys? They’d post the picture the body would be like “while many believe trump did drink the soda based on his historical love of the drink, the official narrative is that it belonged to a member of staff who has not been named. Additionally there have been several debunked theories about the photo being doctored or the situation being a fabriction.” With no definitive ruling on whether he did or not because they often don’t seem to do that anymore to seem “impartial”

At this point though he would have already done something else ridiculous and horrible so everyone would’ve moved on. “Who cares about mcdonalds and toys?” you say. “Did you not just hear he literally banned people from thinking about the concept of trans people and imposed a 40% tariff on anything blue?”

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 6 months ago

Mihon is still available although it doesn’t do anime, only manga

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 months ago

I would go through LinkedIn and pick a person at random, use their name with the exact same spelling and any alphabet soup they have behind their name

Jerry Thompson, Esq Mary Kowalski, F.A.C.S. Dr. Alan Carter, DDS, FACP

These are all fake btw. I mean they may not be but if they are it’s genuinely a coincidence. That would be so weird

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 6 months ago

It happened long before chatgpt. Subredditsimulator was touted as a “fun game” at first but it was really a testing ground for bot devs. That goes back to like 2016, 6 years before chatgpt.

Openai was established 2015 though, some of their team was probably already shitting up the internet by then

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago

oh my god how could I forget the thick base layer of sour cream, spread around the entirety of the tortilla so that literally every bite has a huge dollop of

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It says “Im sorry but that’s beyond my current scope” and asks to change the topic and people make 8,000,000 memes about censorship

Meanwhile chatgpt is much more subversive with things like suggesting Israel has an inherent right to freedom and Palestinian freedom is a “complex topic”, only changing the model after this blows up on twitter, and no one really gives a shit.

Here’s a fun answer from chatgpt about OpenAI’s business ethics

Prompt: if a product is brought to market with little regulation and overview does a company such as OpenAI have a right to keep a product such as chatgpt proprietary considering the potential harm?

  1. Risks of Keeping AI Proprietary

Lack of Transparency: If an AI system significantly influences public discourse, elections, or safety-critical decisions, keeping it proprietary can make accountability difficult.

Limited External Scrutiny: Without independent review, it’s harder to assess whether the system is biased, unsafe, or being misused. Potential for Abuse: Proprietary control means the company alone dictates who can use AI and how, raising concerns about corporate overreach.

“3. Risks of Making AI Fully Open-Source Misuse by Bad Actors: A fully open-source ChatGPT could be exploited for disinformation campaigns, fraud, or even cyberattacks.

Loss of Safety Mechanisms: OpenAI currently moderates ChatGPT to prevent harm (e.g., blocking certain types of malicious content). If fully open, these protections could be stripped away.

Commercial Viability: If everything were open-source, companies might lack incentives to develop and maintain such powerful AI systems.

Conclusion: Should OpenAI Be More Transparent? Yes—if ChatGPT has serious risks, greater oversight and external review should exist. But a fully open-source AI could introduce new dangers, so careful regulation rather than total disclosure may be the most ethical approach.

Would you like to discuss AI regulation models that balance innovation and safety?”

So here we are trading (fairly blatant) censorship for (more subtle) propaganda. Transparency and open standards are bad! Put your trust into OpenAI! We will take care of the bad guys and make sure you don’t see nasty stuff. How do you know that’s the case? Just trust us bro!

Though to their credit they at least present the idea that proprietary models can be harmful, although the conclusion at the end is that this is not the case. To be clear I left out point 1 (it shows point 2 as point 1, I’m fucking up the markdown somehow) for length but this was just preamble.

At least deepseek releases their model. Not to mention the significant impact on the environment that their much more economical model has. or the tremendous impact on privacy that is obtained by being able to run the model locally (though to be fair at this point this is a privilege for those with at least a decent gpu).

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 6 months ago (17 children)

80% the time it isn’t even close to the case

here’s your bag of shredded “Mexican” cheese with no Mexican cheese in it. You can put it on your “taco” that’s got grey ground beef, watery flavorless red “sauce” that’s smooth because you can’t handle salsa, iceberg lettuce, and a dash of tabasco because you say “you like spice” but what you really like is vinegar. all served on an microwaved flour tortilla that is cold

you don’t even use lime

“Authentic”

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

According to another comment reply that info is out of date

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (9 children)

States Where You Can Buy a Gun at a Gun Show Without a Waiting Period or Background Check

In the following states, private sellers (non-licensed individuals) at gun shows can sell firearms without conducting a background check or imposing a waiting period:

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Georgia Idaho Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mississippi Missouri Montana New Hampshire New Mexico North Carolina (only for rifles & shotguns; handguns require a permit) North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

FREEDOM

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 98 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (17 children)

Total fiction. Everyone knows you have to go to a unlicensed seller at a gun show in the majority of states for that, not a gun store

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 6 months ago

“The quiet dissent underlines who wields the power in Silicon Valley these days: the bosses”

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh

also “these days” as if silicon valley was once a worker run socialist wonderland

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 6 months ago

oh cool, tackling the key issues facing us right now

view more: ‹ prev next ›