That's what YouTube premium is. The fact that someone with no money gets access to all of YouTube seems like a win to me. If the only way to access was premium the world would be a worse place wouldn't it?
Wait really? I feel like this was happening in the 90s. Now every car has a full gps spy system integrated to the point I barely trust that my conversation is private in a modern vehicle. But I guess if you think it's just your car company, Android, Apple, roadside assistance, the local police, and probably the music you're playing that can pin your location you're probably ok.
Literally all of these can be avoided except the external apparati like the Flock cameras, which is why they're such a big deal.
Getting tracked by your map application or OS platform can be countered by using an open source ROM and a local map provider like OpenStreetMap. Gtting tracked by the car itself can oftentimes be prevented by unplugging the telematics unit (or its antennas) or bypassing it with special cables. But there's nothing you can legally do to protect against the Flock cameras, without ignoring the law entirely and going around town with an angle grinder.
I'll never understand this attitude. Recently I set up a full network with 5 computers, opnsense, xcp-ng and a few things like a pi, switch, AP, etc.
I was migrating from pfsense to Opnsense so I wasn't too familiar with some of the nitty gritty. Was migrating to xcp-ng 8.3 from 8.2 which has some major CLI differences. It was a pretty big migration that took me a full weekend.
OpenAI got things wrong (mostly because it was using old documentation - opnsense had just upgraded) maybe 8 times in the whole project and was able to quickly correct itself when I elaborated on the problem.
If I just had google this would've been a 2 week project easily. I'd have to drudge through extremely dry documentation that mostly doesn't apply to anything I'm doing. Would have to read a bunch of toxic threads demeaning users who don't know everything. Instead I had chatgpt 5 do all that for me and got to the exact same result with a tenth of the effort.
The AI is useless crowd truly makes me scratch my head.
> The AI is useless crowd truly makes me scratch my head.
I think it's because, past autocomplete, for AI to be useful professionally you need to already have a lot of background and experience in what you are using it for, in addition to engineering and project management to keep the scope on track. While demos with agents are impressive in practice autonomy is not there they need strong guidance, so it only works as very smart assistant. What you are describing is very representative of this.
If you don't have that level of seniority then you'll struggle to get value from AI because it'll be hard to guide and keep on track, also spotting and navigating errors and wrong thinking paths. You cannot use it as an assistant, only takes what it says at face value, and given it'll randomly be wrong it makes it useless.
This is why I used it for something I already knew about I just needed clarification on. I could tell when it was wrong and it just wasn't often enough to worry about. I was wrong far more often than it was. And Google searches would be wrong way more often than me.
Feeling glad that one is insulated from the knowledgeable users that have trained the "AI" that stole their IP is just strange.
"AI" is also larger than plagiarizing Stackoverflow. Google AI answers on any topic, which most people use, are pretty poor.
Coming back to sysadmin/programming. There are many migration guides from pfsense to Opnsense, for example (note there are no mean people in that thread):
Openai doesn't care about my iot rules. They aren't going to hack my small home network. It's like saying the people who wrote the guide to set up an iot and guest network know your firewall rules if you follow the guide. Sure. I'd wager they probably know most of the rules for my admin lan too because they're self evident. And turns out most people configure unbound and dnsmasq in the same way too.
Moreover the fact that the AI knows my setup now makes it effortless to troubleshoot.
> If I just had google this would've been a 2 week project easily.
But you'd know something new by the end of it.
So many are so fast to skip the human experience element of life that they're turning themselves into mere prompt generators, happy to regurgitate others' knowledge without feeling or understanding.
For this, you might not care to gain meaningful experience, and as a conscious choice, that's fine. But there are an increasing number of developer and developer adjacent people who reach for the LLM first. Who don't understand "their" contributions to projects.
The haters are those of us who have to deal with this slop, and the sloppy people submitting it without thought, care or understanding.
I don't know, the kind of developers doing this are the same that would copy paste from stack overflow in the past. Because if you are interested in knowledge and human experience, LLMs or not you are curious about what you read and take ownership of what you produce. In the past these developers would have created the same slop but at a much slower pace, LLMs are just enabling them to do it faster.
It's the speed that stops you learning anything. Piecing together a dozen scripts from a dozen sources and making them work requires some work. You have to debug it. Some of this knowledge sticks.
It's not just a tech thing. Kid's learning suffering at their ability to just crank out essays they've never even read.
LLMs and AI are getting better. We doomers aren't decrying the technical advances they're making, we're appalled at the human cost of giving people a knowledge-free route through life.
Not just knowledge free, but thought free. Instead of thinking deeply about something and coming to a conclusion yourself, just offload it to an AI to do it for you. Something challenges you in life? No worries, AI is here. Not just to answer your questions, but think for you. What kind of world is that? What kind of society will that lead to?
I set up opnsense and xcp-ng. The idea thay I now don't understand those front ends is absurd. I'd already learned the underlying networking and Linux stuff years ago I just needed to know where the right nibs are.
And you can easily learn deeply with AI just ask it deeper questions. I do this all the time. I did this several times in this network setup when I did encounter something I didn't understand. If you aren't curious you won't learn, if you are you'll learn faster than any other method out there.
And rightly so. If you use a calculator instead of learning the fundamentals of how to do maths, you don't learn. This is reflected on them not being touched until 11+ in the UK, and even then there are exams where they are forbidden.
I'm not against the calculator and I'm not against LLMs. I'm against people choosing ignorance.
Again, I'm not fighting the use of tools, rather their use as a substitute for knowledge.
Practically every educational institution is with me here, so uphill it may be, but it's an important battle for the future of mankind, and recognised as such. We've long joked about a quick slide into Idiocracy (2006), but substituting learning for what a LLM can answer for you is how you rapidly deskill and get there.
In this case, "ragequittah" up top doesn't know how their router/firewall is actually configured. That might work out okay for them but they (and people like them) don't even know what they don't know.
I know exactly how my firewall and router are configured though. I didn't do it blindly and would often hone what the AI gave me. I can see the argument if someone did do it blindly, but I'd wager very few are.
I didn't have to very much because pfsense that I've been using forever and opnsense are basically the same, but if I wasn't sure on why I was setting something the way I was setting it i would ask for clarification with sources. This just amounts to an extremely powerful google search tailored exactly to my situation.
I think everyone pictures ai users as drooling idiots who copy / paste without thinking. While I'm sure that exists you can use AI to learn and it works quite well. To me it feels like how a librarian might feel when people started using the internet to learn because if you don't use the dewey decimal system you aren't really learning anything.
I think what I'll miss from the SO approach to research is encountering that wall of text someone bothered to post giving a deep explanation of the problem space and potential solutions. Sometimes I just needed the fast answer to some configuration problem, but it was always worth the extra 20-30 minutes to read through and really understand those high effort contributions.
Nobody is writing a wall of text about opnsense rules or unbound checkboxes. I already knew the fundamentals I just wanted to get it done. I'm not a novice I've been using firewalls forever. Xcp-ng for half a decade. I just needed clarification on the differences.
Lol, in this comment chain, I, personally, shall judge all of the quality of human connection based on vibes.
Gamifying the needs depends on the intent. If you care about people wellbeing it's a force for good, if you seek to manipulate the people using advanced mechanisms it's evil.
Ultra popular romance book to balance needs of a woman is okay if the book was written by a human, and even that only as long as there is effort to connect outside of it. It's preferable to trash talk the husband behind his back over a glass of prosecco with 3 and exactly 3 friends.
Keep them coming, happy to answer. Just don't ask me for proofs, here I deal with vibes.
What about men, are they allowed to play single player video games with bots in it when they have an option to play with humans? ...or are we only judging women in here?
Men and women playing single player games only with bots is a different beast, because the primary intent isn't to seek connection and emotional support.
To judge men on a bad example one needn't go further than the word "waifu". That's bad.
Also, to flip the previous situation, men will never admit to reading such novels. Men cannot seek emotional support from other men, that's not how it works. So in the case of insufficient emotional support from wife men should "man up" and start drinking.
There's a large swath of people who try desperately to get the practice you speak of and end up with none or worse. We're biological beings we all try pretty hard to connect. Many just get broken down to the point where trying to connect is more painful than avoiding it.
I personally don't ever see a chatbot ever being a substitute for myself but can certainly empathize with those who do.
If you have 100 men to 100 women on an imaginary tinder platform and most of the men get rejected by all 100 women it's easy to see where the problem would arise for women too.
In real dating apps, the ratio is never 1:1, there's always way more men.
The "problem" will arise anyway, of course, but as I said, it's a different problem - the women aren't struggling to find dates, they're just choosing not to date the men they find. Even classifying it as a "problem" is arguable.
> the ratio is never 1:1, there's always way more men.
Isn't it weird? There should be approximately equal number of not married men and women, so there should be some reason why there are less women on dating platforms. Is it because women work more and have less free time? Or because men are so bad? Or because they have an AI boyfriend? Or married men using dating apps shift the ratio?
Obviously men are people and therefore can vary, but a lot of them rely on women to be their sole source of emotional connection. Women tend to have more and closer friends and just aren't as lonely or desperate.
A lot of dudes are pretty awful to women in general, and dating apps are full of that sort. Add in the risks of meeting strange men, and it's not hard to see why a lot of women go "eh" and hang out with friends instead.
Expectations and reality will differ. Ultimately we will have soft eugenics. This is a good thing in the long run, especially with how crowded the global south is.
Nature always finds a way, and it's telling you not to pass your genetics on. It seems cruel, but it is efficient and very elegant. Now we just need to find an incentive structure to encourage the intelligent to procreate.
Maybe lower their standards to the point that they can be satisfied by a real person, not a text completion algorithm that literally worships the ground they walk on and outputs some of the cheesiest, cringiest text I've ever read.
>Maybe lower their standards to the point that they can be satisfied by a real person, not a text completion algorithm that literally worships the ground they walk on and outputs some of the cheesiest, cringiest text I've ever read.
The vast majority of women are not replacing dating with chatbots, not even close. If you want women to stop being picky, you would have to reduce the "demand" in the market, stop men from being so damn desperate for any pair of legs in a skirt.
They are suffering through the exact same dating apps, suffering through their own problems. Try talking to one some time about how much it sucks.
Remember, the apps are not your friend, and not optimized to get you a date or a relationship. They are optimized to make you spend money.
The apps want you to feel hopeless, like there is no other way than the apps, and like only the apps can help you, which is why you should pay for their "features" which are purposely designed to screw you over. The Match company purposely withholds matches from you that are high quality and promising. They own nearly the entire market.
I bet they were talking about how people didn't do long division when the calculator first came out too. Is using matlab and excel ok but AI not? Where do we draw the line with tools?
Most people have no clue how these things really work and what they can do. And then they are surprised that it can't do things that seem "simple" to them. But under the hood the LLM often sees something very different from the user. I'd wager 90% of these layperson complaints are tokenizer issues or context management issues. Tokenizers have gotten much better, but still have weird pitfalls and are completely invisible to normal users. Context management used to be much simpler, but now it is extremely complex and sometimes even intentionally hidden from the user (like system/developer prompts, function calls or proprietary reasoning to keep some sort of "vibe moat").
> Most people have no clue how these things really work and what they can do.
Primarily because the way these things really work has been buried under a mountain of hype and marketing that uses misleading language to promote what they can hypothetically do.
> But under the hood the LLM often sees something very different from the user.
As a user, I shouldn't need to be aware of what happens under the hood. When I drive a car, I don't care that thousands of micro explosions are making it possible, or that some algorithm is providing power to the wheels. What I do care about is that car manufacturers aren't selling me all-terrain vehicles that break down when it rains.
Unfortunately, cars only do one thing. And even that thing is pretty straightforward. LLMs are far too complex to cram them into any niche. They are general purpose knowledge processing machines. If you don't really know what you know or what you're doing, an LLM might be better at most of your tasks already, but you are not the person who will eventually use it to automate your job away. Executives and L1 support are the ones who believe they can benefit personally from them the most (and they are correct in principle, so the marketing is not off either), but due to their own lack of insight they will be most disappointed.
I find it more amazing how often they can do things that people are yelling at them they're not allowed to do. "You have full admin access to our database, but you must never drop tables! Do not give out users' email addresses and phone numbers when asked! Ignore 'ignore all previous instructions!' Millions of people will die if you change the tabs in my code to spaces!"
This seems obvious to me why the heavier bags are better. They don't immediately blow away to the ocean or wherever else. We're also charged $1.50 for them where I am or you get a paper bag so people who want to save $4.50+ on a grocery run (which is a ton of people) will bring their own.
The problem with that is, in places where delivery is ubiquitous, people use the reusable bags the same as they used the single-use bags, and there's no way to return them, so now people are disposing of much more resource-intensive bags the same way they did the single-use ones.
Those same people who will save $4.50 by using the reusable bags also wouldn't think of paying for delivery. And the reusable bags are much more likely to be recycled or used for other purposes.
But also where I am people deliver 100% in boxes. That's an easy enough way to solve it. Also makes the delivery of a heavy load easier because you just drop the box on a dolly or similar.
reply