papasquat's recent activity
-
Comment on Reddit will require you to be logged in to use old.reddit.com in ~tech
-
Comment on AI adoption and IntelliSense in ~tech
papasquat LinkIt's something I've been thinking about for a little bit. All the major ai studios have been marketing their models, and more importantly, their apps as omni tools that are suitable for every...It's something I've been thinking about for a little bit. All the major ai studios have been marketing their models, and more importantly, their apps as omni tools that are suitable for every single task involving data in any way. The idea is that if the model itself can't handle the task (people are becoming much more aware of the limitations of what an LLM is good at and what it's bad at) it can quickly code up a one shot python script to do the task and use an ephemeral VM environment to run it, all without the user actually having to worry about what's under the hood. I can barely keep up with what the companies are falling their new ai features, but I believe Anthropic calls this Claude cowork. I think they've built some of this functionality into the normal Claude chatbot as well. I'm sure OpenAI, Google, Twitter and Microsoft have their own versions of this too.
That's all well and good when it produces the results you want. It very often does do that. But as anyone that's done any sort of data manipulation knows, when it doesn't, the failures are subtle and hard to detect unless you're the one that's been knee deep in the data and the code that manipulated it.
I hope people start seeing the flaws in this approach and come up with a solution. I don't know if we're ever going to go back to the days of bespoke, handcrafted small tools and add-ons to perform data manipulation tasks for us though. It's hard to make stuff like that for every edge case you run into, and people don't like doing hard things or paying people for their time to do hard things.
-
Comment on AI job grief in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentYeah, the whole article fell flat on its face because of that presupposition. It completely shatters the central premise that this is somehow a new phenomenon. You're telling me that the artisan...Yeah, the whole article fell flat on its face because of that presupposition. It completely shatters the central premise that this is somehow a new phenomenon.
You're telling me that the artisan woodworker who created bespoke furniture with careful precision and finely honed skills from decades of experience doesn't use his job as part of his identity, but Kelly, the accounts receivable clerk at Allstate who took the job because it was the first position to call her back does? Kelly takes being laid off because of the new AI accounting tool harder than the woodworker did by being replaced by IKEA?
Nah, sorry. That angle doesn't hold.
-
Comment on I made a satirical AI detector in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentYeah, that's what I mean. Like, sorry if the sentence construction you've always used before LLMs got caught in the crossfire bro. It's cliched and cloying even without the AI association though,...Yeah, that's what I mean. Like, sorry if the sentence construction you've always used before LLMs got caught in the crossfire bro. It's cliched and cloying even without the AI association though, learn to write better if you want people to take you seriously. It's the corporate memphis of phrasing.
-
Comment on I made a satirical AI detector in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentFor me, the most dead giveaway is the "it's not just x—it's y" sentence framing. For me it's to the point where I actually don't even care if the writing is AI generated or not once I read that....For me, the most dead giveaway is the "it's not just x—it's y" sentence framing.
For me it's to the point where I actually don't even care if the writing is AI generated or not once I read that. It's so cliched and annoying I immediately stop reading anything past that.
-
Comment on My partner says our relationship has always felt suffocating, but she does not know what she wants. What would you do? in ~life
papasquat Link ParentGood job! Breaking up is hard, and it takes guts to finally end something that is going nowhere. There are so many people that have wasted so many precious years of their limited life putting...Good job! Breaking up is hard, and it takes guts to finally end something that is going nowhere. There are so many people that have wasted so many precious years of their limited life putting themselves through misery with another person that they shouldn't be with.
I would say don't worry about dating right now. Enjoy being single. I always miss it a bit when I'm in a relationship. Don't rush to find someone, just enjoy doing whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it right now.
-
Comment on Grand Theft Auto VI - Pre-orders and Edition information in ~games
papasquat Link ParentThey can't do it because then they wouldn't be able to milk people for all they're worth who will buy the same game twice.They can't do it because then they wouldn't be able to milk people for all they're worth who will buy the same game twice.
-
Comment on No, artificial intelligence is not conscious in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentThey're really good voice imitators too. I imagine diffusion models will eventually become really good body language emulators as well once they have access to decent bodies. When they're good at...They're really good voice imitators too. I imagine diffusion models will eventually become really good body language emulators as well once they have access to decent bodies. When they're good at emulating all of the ways human beings have at their disposal to communicate, it will become basically impossible not to anthropomorphize them. They're basically machines designed for the explicit purpose of anthropomorphization. They're designed to be good at the types of interactions humans use.
-
Comment on Why carbon capture can't solve climate change in ~enviro
papasquat Link ParentMy concern is that human capacity and resources are a zero sum game. We could put a lot of resources towards carbon capture, but a lot of those resources are drawn from the same pool as the ones...My concern is that human capacity and resources are a zero sum game. We could put a lot of resources towards carbon capture, but a lot of those resources are drawn from the same pool as the ones used for building out renewables and reducing energy consumption (namely, political capital and public budgets). Every billion you spend on a carbon capture plant is a billion you're not spending on solar and wind farms, or energy research, or public transit infrastructure.
I don't know if tying the planets long term health to billions of square miles of industrial plants is a viable long term solution versus just reducing humanity's carbon output to a level that the planet can naturally absorb using its existing carbon cycle.
-
Comment on Marc Andreessen is a philosophical zombie in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentI don't know how we got to a place where billionaires go on podcasts to say stuff that sounds like in-universe Warhammer 40k propaganda.I don't know how we got to a place where billionaires go on podcasts to say stuff that sounds like in-universe Warhammer 40k propaganda.
-
Comment on How important is sexual chemistry/ability/quality to you when you date/marry/whatever? in ~life
papasquat Link ParentYou keep saying "bad at it" as if there's some objective measure of sexual skill. The only person that can judge whether sex with someone is good or bad is the person they're having sex with. That...it’s a more comfortable thought that I’m the problem as opposed to thinking peope can be physically bad at it.
You keep saying "bad at it" as if there's some objective measure of sexual skill. The only person that can judge whether sex with someone is good or bad is the person they're having sex with. That means that their perception of whether it's good or bad has as much to do with their expectations as it does with what the other person is doing. It's not like bowling where you have a set score at the end and if someone is above that score, they're good, and if they don't, they're bad.
It's not even like art, where there's a broad audience that can judge it with their own subjective tastes and come up with a consensus. There's an audience of exactly one, and people differ wildly in their tastes.
It would be more like someone who creates custom commissioned art for a single person. Even if everyone in the entire world hates their art, if the person who commissioned it likes it and is satisfied with their purchase, you can't say they're a bad artist, even if they're just drawing misshapen stick figures. They're satisfying their audience, so they're clearly not objectively bad.
You can colloquially say that someone is bad at sex, but what that actually means is that you didn't like having sex with them, not that there's some measurable problem that they have that no one will like.
I think squid is disgusting personally. I would never say that squid as a food is objectively bad though, even though I've had other food that I like. I just don't care for it.
-
Comment on How important is sexual chemistry/ability/quality to you when you date/marry/whatever? in ~life
papasquat LinkIt's a factor, not a significant one though. I've been in relationships for a long time now, and as I get older, sex isn't as important to me. I still like it, and I couldn't be in a relationship...It's a factor, not a significant one though. I've been in relationships for a long time now, and as I get older, sex isn't as important to me.
I still like it, and I couldn't be in a relationship without it, but I've realized that other things are way, way more important with regard to who I spend my time with.
I also don't really view sexual compatibility as the same thing you're framing it as. Getting out of rhythm or whatever is just something two people sort of work out over time. You end up adapting to each other and finding what works for both of you.
I'd view sexual compatibility as something more akin to "she wants to have sex once a month, but I'd prefer twice a day", or "she wants heavy bdsm stuff and constant experimentation, but I just want to stick with doing the same stuff I like".
That stuff usually can't be worked through if you're too far apart. Rhythm or "skill" or whatever? After being together for a while, that stuff just tends to work itself out.
None of this really applies to casual stuff or one night stands, which I've already decided a while ago are usually unsatisfying and not really worth my time.
-
Comment on What games have you been playing, and what's your opinion on them? in ~games
papasquat Link ParentOne of the most annoying things about factorio is how the sloppy decisions you make early on completely bite you in the ass way later as you get severely limited by them. It forces you to just...One of the most annoying things about factorio is how the sloppy decisions you make early on completely bite you in the ass way later as you get severely limited by them. It forces you to just completely bulldoze parts of your factory and redo them from scratch. If it's bad enough, I've basically scrapped my whole game and started from scratch before, because too many changes at once completely ruin the mental model I have of how my factory works.
I guess that's part of the enjoyment for a lot of people, and I do admit that once that refactoring is done and works smoothly, it feels good... Until you run into the next bottleneck, and you get the feeling of "son of a bitch, not again".
I never quite figured out a way around that problem other than just copying other peoples designs, which saps all of the fun out of the game for me.
-
Comment on These tacky men with ridiculous glasses want you to wear them too in ~life.style
papasquat Link ParentIt'll display your shield, ammo, and how many grenades you're carrying, obviously. I hate having to check that stuff manually.It'll display your shield, ammo, and how many grenades you're carrying, obviously.
I hate having to check that stuff manually.
-
Comment on US Congress clears housing bill, cementing a rare bipartisan feat in ~society
papasquat (edited )Link ParentI don't think this is a rift. It's just the president putting Republicans between a rock and a hard place because he's totally out of touch with the of the amount of power he still has over...I don't think this is a rift. It's just the president putting Republicans between a rock and a hard place because he's totally out of touch with the of the amount of power he still has over Congress versus their constituents. He wants Congress to pass the save act, which is deeply unpopular with constituents because it disenfranchises a lot of people, not just Democrats. If has no chance of passing because of that. This housing bill is popular broadly though.
So republicans can vote for a bill that is wildly unpopular because it takes away some of their constituents right to vote and risk the ire of a president who really doesn't have much power over their political careers anymore, or they can call the presidents bluff and let him do what he will, because they know if he vetoes the housing bill, the blame will be placed squarely on him.
He used to be able to get his way and force Congress to pass laws that their constituents don't like by threatening to primary him. The further along he is in his last presidential term, the fewer congressional elections he'll be president during, which means he has less influence over political careers. Right now, representatives only have to deal with trump as an active political force for one more election, and it's an election that his party seems poised to badly lose because of him. After that, his power to threaten congresspeople at primaries greatly diminishes. I think we'll start to see a lot more of these clashes between Congress and the president as time goes on because of that, even if they manage to hold a majority somehow.
It's like if you took your family out to eat, and the owner of the restaurant was like "I'll only bring out the appetizers you ordered for your family if you make them eat these bowls of diarrhea too, and if you don't, they'll blame you for not getting their appetizers" and then you're like "uh, no thanks. The appetizers aren't really worth eating diarrhea. We just won't come to this restaurant anymore. Also, they're the ones who picked this restaurant in the first place, so they're not going to blame me for not bringing their appetizers, they're going to blame you"
-
Comment on These tacky men with ridiculous glasses want you to wear them too in ~life.style
papasquat LinkI know that if I ever tried to wear something like these, I'd tear them off my face and stomp on them within three days of having them. In theory it's an interesting idea, having access to...I know that if I ever tried to wear something like these, I'd tear them off my face and stomp on them within three days of having them.
In theory it's an interesting idea, having access to information whenever I want. In practice, so many annoying little piece of shit technologies compete for my attention basically every minute of the day. My phone pings me with notifications, my computer at work makes a bloop sound when teams messages and emails come in, my tv whines that it needs to be updated, my computer at home "helpfully" tells me when new windows features or video card features or my fucking mouse's software has new features available. I absolutely detest it, and I've avoided smart watches like the plague because of the same reason.
Any time I talk about this problem online, a deluge of people chime in with "but your notification settings!" Like clockwork, which is a disingenuous response and I'm pretty sure everyone that says it knows it. Applications update themselves and silently change their notification settings all the time, and every time a new one is installed, those settings need to be reviewed. It's like a second job that I need to take on just to not being driven insane which I never signed up for.
So in theory, yeah, cool, ar glasses let me pretend to be iron man and... I don't know, check to see if the noodle place I want to go to is open without the excruciating labor of reaching into my pocket for my phone. In the real world where technology concepts are absolutely ruined by greed and incompetence, having a cloud connected ad machine on my face at all waking hours constantly annoying me with notifications literally sounds less desirable to me than Chinese water torture.
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentEven if that's the case (there have been examples of people in Star Trek spending money within the federation too), you'd need there to be some way to earn federation credits. They have value in...Even if that's the case (there have been examples of people in Star Trek spending money within the federation too), you'd need there to be some way to earn federation credits. They have value in some way, which means people are willing to do things they wouldn't otherwise do in exchange for them. Their existence at all basically implies a full economy, which isn't actually expanded on.
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentNot only did they own a big farm, Robert Picard had farmhands working for him. If you could do anything in the world, have anything you wanted, and had zero obligation to have a job, is there even...private ownership/inequality obviously has some specifics, like Picard's family owning a big farm.
Not only did they own a big farm, Robert Picard had farmhands working for him.
If you could do anything in the world, have anything you wanted, and had zero obligation to have a job, is there even a modicum of a chance that you'd sign up to pick grapes in the middle of a field during summertime in France all day? On someone else's land???
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentI think that's the reason Deep Space Nine resonated with me and a lot of other people. It kind of deconstructs a lot of the lore in a way and drills down into the implications of a society as it's...I think that's the reason Deep Space Nine resonated with me and a lot of other people. It kind of deconstructs a lot of the lore in a way and drills down into the implications of a society as it's depicted in the other Star Trek shows.
One of the most iconic episodes, and my all time favorite is The Seige of AR-558, in the midst of brutal combat attrition, Quark lays down this gem:
Let me tell you something about humans, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time, and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces. Look in their eyes. You know I'm right, don't you?
It's Quark basically saying to the audience that maybe all that stuff Jean-Luc Picard said about how humans are better now and there's no such thing as crime or greed or racism anymore because humanity has fundementally evolved might be kind of bullshit. Maybe it's just because technology and military power have given humanity unprecedented peace and abundance in the 24th century, and if you take those things away, humans go back to their fundemental base instincts just like everyone else.
That may or may not be the case in the universe of the show, but it does kind of feel grounded and like an admission that the roadmap for how to get to the federation that the show lays out is kind of nonsensical.
A real political policy has to deal with real people with real desires, resource constraints and conflicts, not perfectly behaved unselfish enterprise bridge crews with access to magical machines that can do anything.
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentBut, as a contradiction, there are multiple times in TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY where "federation credits" are referenced in relation to buying and selling things. It's clear there's some form of...But, as a contradiction, there are multiple times in TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY where "federation credits" are referenced in relation to buying and selling things. It's clear there's some form of currency. It's not clear how you actually get that currency and what exactly it's used for. I think that's what @V17 was referring to.
It's one thing to just say "we don't have money" and then constantly contradict that. It's another to actually demonstrate how a society without money would plausibly work.
Star Trek does the former a lot more than the latter.
People in the techie sphere seem to overestimate how many people in the world care about the same things they do.
Normal people don't really care about privacy, user hostile UI design, advertising, forced app downloads, or quality of discussion. They care about what site has, ragebait, memes, sexualized content, and their friends.
All of that stuff that people were so vocal about reddit killing are not things that most people who use the site, or any social media site care about. The people who care about that stuff run adblockers, don't post lowest common denominator content, and don't click on affiliate links, so reddit not only doesn't care about them, they actively want them gone.
That's something that is missed a lot in these discussions. Tiktok, Instagram, reddit, Twitter and so on do not want you on their sites. You just use bandwidth and complain. You don't watch ads or buy things or go along with their plan of extracting every possible dime out of your attention as possible, so you're not being catered to, and features are intentionally being introduced so that you leave the site.
That's why the reddit "protest" didn't work. All of these users left in droves with the intention of sticking it to reddit and forcing them to realize that they are alienating their users, but reddit just said "oh no this is horrible! Anyway, let's get back to the memes about women versus men and onlyfans posts"
It's the fate of any social media site with a profit motive. Tech savvy users are not profitable.