What’s a common “fact” that’s spread around that’s actually not true and pisses you off that too many people believe it?
That the granny who sued McDonald’s was just upset that her coffee was too hot.
She suffered from either third or fourth degree burns, on her lap.
Parts of her were fused together.
She just wanted McDonald’s to cover the medical bill, but they dragged her name through the mud.
Yep, also they had previously been warned about serving coffee that hot, but studies had shown that serving it that hot meant that people drank less of it. And that “crazy” judgement (2.5 million?) wasn’t a random number. That’s how much they make off coffee in one day.
Yeah we actually learned very quickly about that in legal studies (high school) way back in 2000s and it was presented like a silly Americans (Australian here) kind of thing, just a quick silly case in a small box in the textbook. Wasn’t til I got older I learned the full story!
We had an Aussie silly case too, not just picking on the US 😅 ours was about some drink in an opaque bottle and someone drank it all before they could see there was some kind of bug or even a snail in the bottle? Something like that so they sued the drink company 🤢 can’t remember enough about that one to find anything on it!
I saw that, yeah McDonald’s really tried to blast her as a sue happy bitch. All she asked for was medical bill costs initially which is reasonable.
This misconception was well paid for. McDonalds and a large group of fortune 500 companies started a slander ad campaign against lawsuits. They literally paid people to write and run stories about “stupid and unjust” lawsuits, claiming the lawsuits wee a waste and of course bringing up this one.
It worked.
People are really bad with misretelling court cases. The amount of times I’ve read “this guy was arrested for wearing a silly hat!” Only to look deeper and find out he was threatening to stab people or something.
The average person only lived to be 35 back in the day.
No, the average lifespan was like 35 back in the day. 40 year olds weren’t some rare wrinkled old person, the average was affected by the extremely high childhood mortality. If you could survive the first few years of your life your chances of surviving the next 60 were pretty good.
That being said, even among people who survived childhood, living to the ages we see nowadays was more rare than it is today due to a lot of environmental and societal factors like plagues and war. It wasn’t unheard of, but that is also something that brought the average down to an extent.
We essentially had a plague in 2020, and there are multiple wars going on as we speak. Those factors didn’t disappear.
The deaths from both the wars going on in the modern day and infectious diseases like COVID are nowhere near on the scale that they were before, especially in terms of the percent of the world population killed by them. We haven’t had deaths on the scale of WWI or the Spanish Flu since those events.
We haven’t had deaths on the scale of WWI or the Spanish Flu since those events.
WWII had 3-5 times the number of deaths (depending on whose numbers you trust) as WWI though? Like, it’s not even close. Even using the highest estimate for WWI (22 million) and the lowest estimate for WWII (70 million) WWII was more than triple the deaths.
The global population at the time of WWI was ~1.8 billion, and at the time of WWII is was 2.3 billion.
So in terms of of percent of the world population, WWI loses.
I will concede that the Spanish flu was a lot worse than COVID.
Fun fact, the bubonic plague never went away. It’s still kicking around the world. Obviously not like it was with The Plague, but still.
There are a couple cases a year in the States. It’s treatable now, that’s the difference
True, but we don’t wholesale shit in our drinking water any more while riddled with syphilis
I got relatives that lived to their 90’s in the 1600’s, we may have skewed it a bit
Propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.
Solar panels are the cheapest source of electricity now. Batteries have dropped in price by more than 90% in the past decade, and are now viable for grid-scale storage, addressing the main issue with renewable energy. EVs are competitive with combustion cars, and in some ways superior. Heat pumps are now superior to furnaces in many locations. The solar punk future is now! But you wouldn’t know any of this by listening to the public discourse, mainstream media, and many politicians.
Relevant video from Technology Connections
I got the vibe of his video as soon as I read the first sentence lol.
History time!
Myth: People in the past drank beer because it was safer than drinking water.
Fact: People in the past drank beer because it was full of calories and tasty. Before modern times people generally had access to or knew how to find clean water, and water has always been the most popular drink throughout history.
–
Myth: People needed spices to cover the taste of rotten meat.
Fact: People ate fresh meat when it was available and preserved it when they could by smoking, drying, salting, fermenting, or otherwise processing it. When they didn’t have access to meat they just wouldn’t eat it. They wanted spices for the same reason we do - because they taste good.
Wasn’t that literally the purpose of grog? A mixture of beer and water used on ships to kill harmful bacteria that would grow in the ships’ water stores over a long voyage?
And if people in the past knew how to make water safe to drink, then why was epidemiology invented when Londoners couldn’t figure out that they should stop drinking poop water?
Wasn’t that literally the purpose of grog? A mixture of beer and water used on ships to kill harmful bacteria that would grow in the ships’ water stores over a long voyage?
-
Grog was a mixture of rum, water, and lime juice. Beer does not have enough of an alcohol content to have any antibacterial impact. Your basic premise is flawed.
-
The main reasons grog was invented were twofold, first and foremost, it diluted the alcohol to manage the sailors’ intoxication levels (much like drinking a rum and Coke does today). Secondly, the addition of lime juice helped fight off scurvy (leading to British sailors being called “limeys”).
-
While it did improve the flavor of stale water, the disinfecting properties have been greatly exaggerated over time.
-
I can’t speak to practices on sailing ships, those surely differ from general history especially when it comes to fresh water which isn’t freely available on the ocean.
And to your second point, in the context of history that happened in modern times. The cholera epidemics happened in the 19th century with the epidemiologist John Snow publishing his treatise in 1855. Unsafe drinking water causing widespread disease was mainly a problem of modern cities in the industrial age and the overcrowding and unsanitary conditions that came with it.
Grog was way after the middle ages.
Beer was the main beverage aboard ships before, as it keeps better than water in eigen kegs. But you can’t stock up on beer everywhere. Distilled alcohol has a better form factor, do you can take more. It made the water kind of palatable but doesn’t clean it.
Then why does people’s preference for spicy food correlate to local food pathogen prevalence?
See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9586227/
To elaborate a little further. “Just not eating” something is a modern luxury. For most of our history, you ate everything that was available or (someone, usually your youngest kids first) starved. The argument isn’t that spices cover the taste of rotten food, but that they actually kill the pathogens that make humans sick, making more food edible for longer. This is a spill over from these plants’ long evolutionary arms race with phytotoxins. Cultures in places with high food pathogen prevalence, where spicing makes a real difference to survival, develop a preference for spicy food, despite their initially aversive taste. Cultures in cold climates with few food pathogens don’t.
I’m skeptical of this. It seems more likely that they’re simply correlated because biodiversity is higher in warmer climates, both of microorganisms and plants.
Ask yourself these two questions. One, why would there be any spoiled meat around? Why was it not consumed or preserved immediately? People knew meat spoiled quickly and would treat it accordingly.
Two, have you ever smelled or tasted rotten meat? It’s quite literally repulsive, it’s hard to even get near. No amount of chili or black pepper is covering it. And if you were able to stomach it it wouldn’t be worth the vomiting and diarrhea it might cause. Food poisoning could be a death sentence in premodern times, and in fact diarrhea is one of the most common causes of death in undeveloped regions today.
Billing and Sherman have some pretty robust statistical controls to address these kinds of alternatives. Worth reading the paper.
Fully spoiled food is inedible, but there’s a long window of pathogen growth before that point, which can be lengthened further by spices. Why would some meat not be consumed immediately? Because life is messy, people make mistakes, and animals are large.
Yeah no, pubs used to totally used to use curry powder and ketchup to drown the taste of gamey meat.
That all the Y2K preparation stuff was a waste of time / a scam, instead of an example of massive success (people coming together and pulling off something to avoid a disaster)
Also see Acid Rain and the hole in the ozone.
A friend of mine got a high-paying temp job reprogramming servers in some obscure programming language. I think the client was a major bank.
Yeah, a lot of dirtbags took advantage of Y2K, but that doesn’t mean Y2K wasn’t a serious problem. It easily could have been.
It easily could have been
It was a very serious problem.
Very few dirtbags took advantage of it.
Obscure language was probably COBOL. Obscure in the sense that it was once immensely popular for business applications, but by the late 90s there were very few new applications written in it, but a huge number of large businesses still ran it.
You are really underselling the fact that many of these businesses are still running COBOL despite it being the equivalent of ancient Mayan.
That’s not a fair assessment really… Some of them are still using PROLOG.
Shivers
I meant “it easily could have been” in the sense that it if it hadn’t been taken seriously, it would affected virtually everyone in some way.
These are the people who think the precautions around Covid were unnecessary too. If there hadn’t been any precautions, there would have been a lot more deaths and these same idiots would be asking why nothing was done to prevent it. But instead the death toll was kept to a minimum and these people just assume this is how it woukd have been regardless, no sense of cause and effect. Disasters are successfully mitigated and people assume there was no potential disaster at all. But if it had been allowed to happen, then they’d be asking why no action was taken
You’re tired of this? Like, you’ve encountered people actively talking about it so much you’re tired? Besides the odd online post, I’ve never met anyone making reference to or talking about this.
Mate i pulled 70+ hour shifts for months on end to make sure it wasn’t a problem, it only takes one fool for me to be tired of hearing it
Fair enough.
Dozens of times yes
The best first aid for someone having a seizure is to shove a wallet (or something) in their mouth, so that they don’t “swallow their tongue”.
NO!
Never do this. Absolutely never. It’s far more likely that you’ll injure the victim (or yourself) in the attempt.
Furthermore, don’t restrain a seizure victim in any way unless it’s absolutely necessary for their physical safety (like if they’re in danger of falling down a stairway. Even then, it’s usually better to just stand at the top step and act as a barrier). Whenever possible, move things they may hit out of their way; don’t try to move the victim. If there’s something you can’t move, try to put something soft between the victim and the object.
Most of the time, the best thing you can do for a seizure victim is to not touch them at all, and simply give them room.
Is putting a pillow or something soft under their head adviseable? I know the floor is considered a hard immovable object but it putting something under them sorta so im not sure if that qualifies
Generally the advice is moving everything out of the way, if possible a blanket or something under their head as quickly as possible if they are on a hard surface and calling the ambulance (if someone else is there get them to do that straight away while you move stuff!) Also a good idea to time the seizure if possible! When they come to, have them stay laying down for a few minutes at least before sitting up. Some people can appear to be okay but go back into seizure so slowly, slowly with sitting up and even before offering a water.
If you know someone who has seizures, even irregularly, it’s a good idea to ask them about it beforehand in case it ever happens when you’re with them. People can have different management plans and it also just gives you some guidance and the other person some control should it happen.
(I work in disability!)
Thank you. I work with someone that can have seizures and we have a looot of hard floors so this is great advice for me.
Just adding, TIME the seizure. Super important.
Worked with a guy who hasn’t had a seizure in years and had stopped taking his meds. He never disclosed any of this beforehand. Was a fun surprise when he started to get loopy staring at a rotating motor shaft then trying to touch then hug said shaft spinning at several hundred rpm. Pulled him back from trying to bear hug it for him to start convulsing. Trying to carefully lay him down and support his skull to prevent it from cracking on the concrete and metal flooring was an adventure I’d rather never go on again
Is that for information to give first responders when they arrive? Not questioning your advice, just curious about what to do with that information.
Yep that’s right, to give to first responders, the person themselves or any other support people that may be involved. Can help people pick up on if anything is changing, longer seizures can mean medication might need looking at, condition deteriorating etc.
That food stamps or any handouts at all are a serious problem. Our (the US) government launches a single bomb that’s worth years of food support. Idgaf if the food stamp recipients never do a damn thing but watch TV. I’d much rather millions of people doing that than bombing brown people half a world away.
Additionally, it’s been proven in scientific study time and time again that giving people enough money to meet their needs significantly reduces crime and costs significantly less money than the “traditional” approach like inflating police budgets. Literally giving people cash money reduces crime better than any other way you could use the money.
then it wont be able to fund MIC, Prison industries, or low wage. thats why they attack or neglect education funding, and drive culture wars to make jobs pay less by providing billionaires more benefits.
The idea of monetary scale is one I think is a big misconception anytime we’re talking about budget. “This committee wasted MILLIONS of dollars on this stupid niche scenario!” Well, yeah; the USA has millions of people in it. If a program affects the entire country, how much are you willing to spend per person? 8 cents?
Exactly. Budgets on national levels do not compute on a personal level. I like it when articles scale down the numbers to a more individual level “so let’s pretend that the federal government is a single family home…”
I also find it irritating when politicians brag about bills like “this will create 3000 American jobs.” Seriously, that is not even a drop in the bucket.
I also am sick of the sacrificial worship at the altar of “jobs.”
Jobs doing what? Variably scheduled positions pushing bricks around with a broom for minimum wage and getting laid off 4 months later? Jobs only open to those with a Master’s in lepidopterology? Jobs at Burger King making flame-broiled whoppers wearing paper hats?
Seemingly the public loses their poop if it means “jobs”, but won’t put enough energy into support outside of jobs, because we have a state mandated religion based solely on exhaustive toil for its own sake, value and results optional.
Stuff your jobs. Give us healthcare, dammit.
even fast food jobs dont respond to online ads, like from indeed. i notice if the franchise is employing significant amount of 1 demographic they wont hire anyone else but that demo, especially if your name is not of that demographic.
only gop ever brag about it after they voted against it, while the majority voted for it and set it into law. thier supporters are just that dumb.
“Half of Americans voted for this”
No, half the people who actually showed up to vote voted for the guy, but not necessarily all he is and has been doing. It’s actually only about 20-22% or less of the population that actually voted this guy into office and fewer than that are on board with current events. Far from “half of Americans”, so just stop it.
People who didn’t care enough to vote are just as bad as the ones who voted for Trump. They were warned what was coming and they allowed it
While voter apathy is widespread in the US, note that voter disenfranchisement has been honed over decades so many people either didn’t get to vote or could not vote because the impact to them short-term was too great to afford making decisions for the long term (e.g. people losing their jobs while living paycheck-to-paycheck).
Approximately half as bad, in raw outcome terms. A vote for the opponent is significantly worse than not voting. But yeah, big losers for not even voting.
Mathematically speaking, each of them is half as bad as one Trump voter
No, half the people who actually showed up to vote voted for the guy
He only got 49.8% of the popular vote in 2024, so while it’s close enough that most people would accept rounding up, even this statement is not factual in the most literal interpretation.
NPR: Trump would have won even if everyone eligible voted. I agree that substantial Trump voters disapprove of current events, but the truth is one in two US citizens preferred Trump over Harris on Election Day. Not to mention turnout was 64% not 42%, so it’s 30% not 20%
so it’s 30% not 20%
Fair. I was going by population numbers vs votes cast and didn’t have the voter turnout numbers handy when I originally wrote that out and was paraphrasing from that to save time.
But that’s still far from half, and I’m tired of people using the misconception/phrase to justify their xenophobic rhetoric.
oh i thought you were referring to people saying it to illustrate how bad the system is and how important trump winning the election was lol. i definitely agree that it doesn’t justify what he’s doing (even if it legally stands, even if it legally stands, it doesn’t stand socially)
but it is not inaccurate to say nearly half of the citizens preferred him on election day. per the link, pew research shows 48% of non-voters would’ve voted for trump as opposed to 45%, with a pretty high validity.
it also doesnt count un-registered people, it just assume anyone of at age that can vote dint, some arnt even registered, and some are unable to vote for one reason or another that is not due to personal choice.
Nope. Everyone who didn’t vote, voted for this…and every American who isn’t out on the streets right now, fighting to end this, is silently supporting it.
The world gave Americans the benefit of the doubt in 2016, but not this time. Y’all fucked up big time, and it’s your mess to clean up, so get to it.Maybe check your facts. NPR: Trump would have won even if everyone eligible voted
Trump won in 2024 with just under 50% of the vote, 49.7%-48.2% over Democrat Kamala Harris.
Roughly 64% of the eligible-voting population turned out in 2024, the second highest since 1904. 2020 was the highest.
But even if everyone who could vote did, Trump would have won by an even wider margin, 48%-45%, according to Pew’s validated voters survey
Whether it’s your intent or not, the narrative you’re spreading is used to dissuade folks from demanding better than the choice between a shit taco and a turd sandwhich. It affirms a shitty status quo and demands political patience in the face of a fucked up world… to the benefit of fascists and their corporate cronies.
Man I like npr but its missing a lot. It says he would have won by a larger margin but he would get a lower total percentage. So its basically saying that many who did not vote would have voted for a third party as in the election it was apparent just over 2% but in the theoretical one the third party would have won 7%. Of course that is the popular voted and it does not go into where the differences were and for which side. Given the electoral college it really comes down to the swing states. In other words does the thing over the country remain the same just looking at Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Because if they had moved by less than a percent then the election would have went the other way. The real question is if the third party voters really feel the country would be just as bad under kamala as trump. like how bad they view ice and war and tarrifs and dismantling of agencies and firing of experienced people and having a ever more right supreme court and such. From what I can tell they think it would be just the same using online coments anyway.
nah, the DNC refused to actually released the election autopsy, they know they won but they dint want to call out the rigging. 2024 was so obviously rigged by musk and other people. why should the Dem voters have to vote overwhelmingly to overcoming rigging by the republicans every time, the DINODNC are totally complicit in allowing trump a nd the gop to win the elections.
That just reporting on one study by the pew research center. Which may be non-partisan, but they sure as hell aren’t unbiased.
I don’t doubt that. All i was saying was that, if you didn’t vote, it was an automatic vote for what America got. I’ve always said that Trump isn’t the hero America needed, but he’s the one they deserve.
“We are not collectively responsible for the output of this system we collectively use to run our country”. Disagree.
A lot of people who voted for him didn’t like either choice and thought he was least evil for whatever reason. We can never know how evil Harris would have been - even if she wins in the future that doesn’t show what she would have been if she was in now. The situation and people change over time
lol. we 100% could know harris would be less evil than trump. it would have been 4 more years of essentially the same administration but with a younger bend which likely would have been better. only reason people think of trump less evil than harris are ones you cheer on the ice things so they have a twisted version of right and wrong.
That is a matter of opinion. The ‘right’ has different beliefs from you and finds many of the things ‘the left’ supports wrong\evil.
Yeah and Nazis had different opinions about Hitler so we definitely should just be all philosophical and say there really is no difference. /s
What a, putting it lightly, not well thought out argument.
I didn’t say there was no difference in how they are ‘evil’. I said they were both evil and Harris has evils that to the right are just as unplatable if not more than Trump is to the left.
I think they believe that but I have watched thier philosophies dropped by their party to the point where whatever they represent changes whenever. The party is so different now than they were in the 70’s that their own politcians would see the current incarnation as evil. Add to this the blatant violations of the constitution. Americans at the least should be able to understand the bill of rights and how it fits into the declaration of independence’s grievences that lead to the revolutionary war. What happened in the residences in chicago reads exactly like colonial america you just have to replace ice with redcoats. The fact people call themselves americans and think that due process does not apply to all is just. well. frustrating.
It is very frustrating as someone with those ideas that are lost. Nobody is close to what I want. The left keeps moving to socialism and the right to authoritarianism
the left maybe but not democrats who until recently have been going right such that they have a lot in commone with 70’s republicans. Even then the movement left is with a minority caucus within the party but heck it just used to be bernie practically.
That WW1 was the same moral black and white as WW2.
In my opinion, every country in WW1 was the villain just that one side was impatient enough to be the aggressor first.Yeah. When you look at how the war even got started, you start to see that Germany didn’t expect Austria-Hungary to be that incompetent diplomatically and that Russia was the one who threw away a potential peace plan before the war started.
Yep, WWI was the result of a bunch of inbred rulers turning family disagreements into a war because they could.
Ooh this is a hot take, can you explain a little?
I don’t think it is.
They all were colonial powers that oppressed and subdued their colonial holdings, extracting wealth and even soldiers. France was the only republic, all the others were monarchies and Russia had the most absolutist monarchy. But that doesn’t really factor in, because even France wasn’t fighting to spread or preserve democracy.All were fighting to beat them arch enemies, to steal a piece of land or two or maybe a colony and to test their newly developed industrial weaponry. They were all
stompingchomping at the bit before it started.The German Empire was surely the most militaristic society. But they still fought all for the same ideology and reason.
To my last point, you can see that in the result: the losers had to gave up colonies but not to independence but to the victors as spoils.There was a large propaganda effort by the British and French to pin the blame for the war on one of the Central Powers and Germany was the only major Central Powers that didn’t fall apart due to the war.
Stomping at the bit? I’ve never heard that phrase
Yeah I meant chomping at the bit. It comes from horses chewing the metal part of the bridle because they’re fired up and want to run.
“champing” not “chomping”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champing at the bit
Ah, thanks. I am not a native English speaker.
May you explain why you think it’s controversial? Only if you want to.
To my primitive understanding the war was triggered by the Austrians, escalated by the Germans and win by the Allies. But I’ve never bothered to question the information, so it felt quite controversial to read. Your other comment explaining it makes perfect sense however.
“LLMs are not AI”
Artificial intelligence is a term used in computer science to describe a system capable of performing any cognitive tasks that would normally require human intelligence - like generating natural-sounding language. The issue isn’t that the term is being used incorrectly, but rather that most people think it means more than it actually does. It’s a broad term that covers everything from old Atari chess engines to artificial superintelligence.
The problem is people think llm AI means it’s thinking, when it’s obviously not. Thus: “llms are not ai” is said so people will hopefully stop thinking the llms are thinking.
If AI was able to actually think, it wouldn’t even need your input to feed it thoughts from you to respond. It’d probably just talk right away and accurately assume it knows what you want.
AI is just simply an over-glorified piece of tech that is placed in things when humans are incapable of doing it themselves and doing it as efficiently as possible. Like reading anything in microseconds.
That’s weird because I have a calculator that can think, so AI should be able to think too.
That’s not thinking. That’s calculating. It doesn’t have any thoughts about your math problems.
It doesn’t have any thoughts about your math problems.
You say that but I feel judged sometimes.
I’m math intolerant. It destroys my stomach
Really? You’re asking what’s 6x7? Didn’t you learn that in elementary school?
That’s about when I first read the Hitchhiker Trilogy, so, yeah.
I can see what it’s thinking right there on the screen. It thinks that 6x7=42
Touche
I’ll give you that one lolIf you’ll allow Me to drop the quips and get more philosophical, I believe that thinking is just a word for processing data. It’s obvious to Me that you disagree, but I don’t understand why. Your idea of thought seems a little more metaphysical or perhaps even spiritual than Mine.
The obvious assumption I could make is that you believe thinking has internality and data processing doesn’t. But if that’s the case, then you don’t really have any proof for your beliefs, because we can’t ask calculators if their data processing is accompanied by an internal experience. And that’s why it seems to Me that your assertions are unprovable and thus essentially religious in character.
I like it!
I apologize about the spelling, im still on my cup of coffee. I attribute thinking with inwardness, yes. Conciseness is a completely unknown state. No one knows how it works, why it works, what it works in, etc. its a block box.All we know is that we have conciseness. I belive most animals have conciseness, and thus can think. Insects and amoeba, small life forms, have sentience. Sentience is the ability to react to the environment and stimulus, but is unable to think and have conciseness like humans do.
Inorganic objects do not have either of those. You can’t imagine what its like to “be” a rock.They simply are just matter. Computers fall into this category. Computers follow the 1s and 0s, and exacute those instructions. They don’t consider what they’re doing. They don’t ponder on why you’re asking or try things on thier own. They are as sentient as a screwdriver.
Marketing and pr pressure to be able to use the term “Ai” because it’s the current hype. Everything is now Ai. It’s now a meaningless term. Image processing, data calculations, language interpretation, language generation, all claim to be Ai. If your product has Ai it now tells me nothing about what it does.
Marketing only calls everything AI because that’s the only term people recognize. ChatGPT is AI, yes, but it’s an Large Language Model to be specific. Dall-E is also AI but the more accurate term is Diffusion Model. There’s just no point in using these terms in marketing because 90% of people would have no idea what you’re talking about.
When people say that LLMs are not AI they usually mean that LLMs are not generally intelligent (AGI) which is true, but they do still count as an AI.
Exactly but so many people form strong opinions and expectations because the say “Ai” but it could mean so many things.
As a guy working in tech for decades I disagree.
We coined the term wrong. The literal words do not match the technology, as in intelligence.
That ‘we’ agreed on that llm is ai does sadly not make things better.
Anyhow here we are with neither you nor me being able to leave this hype train.
But we don’t have agreed upon definition for intelligence either:
- The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
- the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations
- the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
- the act of understanding
- the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason
- It can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
I see AI as a term similar to “plants.” When I hear this complaint it sounds to me like someone asking how strawberries and sequoia trees can both be plants when they couldn’t be further apart. Well yeah, but that’s why we have more specific terms when we’re referring to a particular plant - just like with AI. Plants and AI are both parent categories that cover a wide range of subcategories.
Respect for you, good sir! A good point well made.
It’s just my interpretation or current understanding of intelligence. I think I am adding sentience and motivation accidentially.
So your original point stands.
Thank you.
I think the issue is that when people hear “AI,” their minds immediately jump to the sci-fi AI systems depicted as as smart or smarter than humans. They then see the stupid mistakes LLMs make and reasonably conclude these systems are nothing alike, so LLMs don’t count as AI in their minds.
However, the AI systems in sci-fi aren’t just intelligent - they’re generally intelligent. That’s what LLMs lack.
The way I see it, there are levels to intelligence. A chess bot is a narrowly intelligent system. It’s great at one thing but can’t do anything else. Then there’s Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which is basically human-level intelligence. The next step up is Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) - a generally intelligent system that’s superhuman across the entire field of intelligence, unlike a chess bot that’s only “superhuman” at chess.
I’d say LLMs are somewhere between narrow intelligence and AGI. They can clearly do more than just generate language, but not to the extent humans can, so I wouldn’t call them generally intelligent. At least not yet.
And yeah, I don’t think sentience necessarily needs to come along for the ride. It might, but it’s not obvious to me that one couldn’t exist without the other. It’s conceivable to imagine a system that’s superintelligent but it doesn’t feel like anything to be that system.
Minor corrections: AI does not just comprise methods for tasks that require ‘cognition’. Let’s rather use the more general “information processing”. Nor is it restricted to “normally requires humans”. Think of swarm intelligence methods for example, like ant colony optimization.
There is an inherent issue in the definition of the word “intelligence” though. For labelling a bunch of methods, that’s not as problematic, we could call all that ‘banana milkshake’ as long as we agree upon what we put into that category.
But we do not even have a good definition of “intelligence” itself. As soon as this issue is solved, we might start rethinking the label ‘artificial intelligence’.
My proposed “information processing” is also insufficient, as it would make a fancy pocket calculator indistinguishable from what we usually call “AI”.
Thinking about that: if we would apply some AI methods, e.g. from the field of machine learning, to perform operations that a pocket calculator already solves (which is kind of ridiculous, because we would be using a computer to train an AI model to mimick a computer) does that make a calculator AI? Or the AI a calculator? What would that make us humans?
Artificial intelligence is a term used in computer science
Arguing that because nerds appropriated an original term does not mean that we have to change the meaning of the original term…
I don’t look out my “transpart glass” I look out my windows. Even tho that’s the name of an operating system. If I say I grok something, it means I understand like Heinlen intended, not that I asked a racist AI about it.
“Artificial Intelligence” and all sorts of things computer nerds are trying to claim they invented have existed in theory at least as far back as Rome.
So “the problem” is you first heard about it in the context of chatbots, so now you want to insist that is the only meaning the phrase has ever represented and everyone else needs to change to accomdoate you.
The problem isn’t people are using the phrase wrong, the problem is you don’t know what it means except in a very narrow context.
None of any of this shit is new, people are just ignorant.
It’s like when I was a kid and watched pro-wrestling, I thought I was cool and original, because I didn’t know the media that they were blatantly ripping off of.
That’s where you are at right now with Artificial Intelligence, you only know the version the grifters have appropriated.
Pre-emptive edit:
I’m not saying chatbots are AI, I’m saying the definition that calls them AI is incorrect because grifters just changed it to fit what they were doing, for money.
You say that like computer scientists in the 1950s who invented the concept of AI stole it from science fiction writers instead of the other way around.
See also: “crypto.”
First, that actually is how language works. Meaning is given to words by consensus and consensus alone. Generally, since it came to widespread usage in the modern lexicon it means exactly as they described.
Second, you say it was appropriated. Okay, from what?
So “the problem” is you first heard about it in the context of chatbots, so now you want to insist that is the only meaning the phrase has ever represented and everyone else needs to change to accomdoate you.
No, it’s a term used in science and engineering to categorize a bunch of algorithms, methods, and models that is being misunderstood by many people in the first place and has existed well before the first chatbots.
Such misconceptions are not unusual, which is often a result of using scientific terminology from a colloquial point of view. Think of the term “theory” for another example.I’m not saying chatbots are AI, I’m saying the definition that calls them AI is incorrect because grifters just changed it to fit what they were doing, for money.
I disagree with the money part. You are now throwing scIentists and engineers into one pot with those who exploit this term for marketing purposes alone.
But I agree that the “intelligence” part is difficult to justify.I understand that it is an intuitive choice for labelling methods that can mimick or outperform “natural intelligence” (people, birds, ants, fungi, bacteria, …) on tasks that involve some form of information processing. The “artificial” part underlines that these methods are usually well… not found in nature (although often inspired from) but manufactured, man-made.
From my point of view the issue really begins at the “intelligence” part. We throw this word around as if it was something unique to humans. Yet, there exists no solid definition of what the fuck ‘intellgience’ even is. I challenge you to think about an airtight definition of ‘intelligence’. If we have a solid definition for that, we can think about how we might carry that over to what we currently call artificial intelligence and may consider relabeling if necessary.
Currently, I lack an alternative. And for that reason I stick with AI as a commonly accepted working label.
“Just doing my job” being a valid excuse for causing even minor harm.
Maybe it would be very hard to choose not to take thay paycheck. Maybe it would have negative consequences for you to not sell fake insurance to people who don’t know better. You don’t get to pretend you didn’t choose to do harm to others.
Agreeing to disagree is only applicable to matters of taste.
Example would be a preference of maple or agave syrup with your choice of cooked dough.
One cannot agree to disagree when one of the parties is factually wrong.
I see the “agree to disagree” as a bit of a social flag for the conversation that says “I don’t wish to get into it / continue arguing about it” because there is no way to respond to it. If you try to continue the debate you look like an asshole, and if you drop it the person who says it gets to continue being wrong without being challenged.
It’s very annoying and I hate it.
A lot of people don’t understand “factually wrong” is often not possible, if you’re literally debating specific stated facts that you have outside references to sure but anything relating to complex systems, issues, the human experience etc is simply not that black and white
The old “tomatoes are not a vegetable” is pretty frustrating. They are a vegetable.
In botanical terms, the concept of a vegetable does not exist, which is where tomatoes are classified as fruits. But in culinary terms, vegetables do exist and tomatoes are classified as such.
I just find it frustrating, because I believed that garbage myself at some point, and I thought, I was smart for knowing that.
Just one of those examples that you can easily spread misinformation, so long as you make it sound plausible.In culinary arts vegetables are the non-sweet edible parts of plants (not fruit). So no, they are not a vegetable.
What is true is people call them a vegetable.
Other sweet plant parts are also considered culinary vegetables: carrots, squash, red peppers, sweet potatoes, fennel, and onions.
Some of them you do have to cook to perceive as sweet, but non-sweet doesn’t seem to be a good dividing line. Striving for non-overlapping categories instead of just accepting the mess seems like a mistake.
As a cook, you are wrong. Those are all vegetables. There is no purity test you can run on what is a vegetable and what is not, it’s literally just what people arbitrarily decided however long ago.
If you’re responding to me, that was my point. They’re all vegetables.
Oh yeah I definitely responded to the wrong person. It’s annoying how often that happens on Lemmy lol
I will accept these are also not vegetables in the culinary sense as well. Looks like you have single handedly eliminate a bunch of vegetables, congratulations.
Ok, so what about peas? Or cabbage? Artichokes? What’s the specific cut off for being too sweet to be a vegetable?
If it is sweet and is a berry/fruit like a tomato then it is not a vegetable. I am personally not having a hard time with this. Not sweet = vegetable. Sweet = debatable.
Hold on, it didn’t need to be a berry/fruit earlier, does that mean carrots and sweet potatoes are vegetables after all?
You know what, let’s try this the other way around: could you name specific examples of things you consider vegetables? Because we’ve named quite a lot now and you don’t seem to consider any of them vegetables.
I am literally going off the culinary definition which is related to taste. If it is sweet it is a good chance it is a berry or fruit of the plant and not the vegetable matter.
There are vegetables where you eat the root.
There are vegetables where you eat the leaves.
There are vegetables where you eat the stem.
But for cucumbers, pumpkins, aubergine and paprika you eat the fruit, why should the tomato be different?I believe the point is non-sweet, tomatoes are often quite sweet without any cooking required
Yes, but bell peppers are also quite sweet. As a kid I learnt that vegetables are from perennial plants (only live for a year) but that rule of thumb is also inconsistent.
Vegetable refuse to be categorised. Become unrulable.
Got it, if ungovernable, it’s a vegetable
If you want to get pedantic the tomato is a berry.
deleted by creator
Sure, but it is not a vegetable.
Venice is often touted as being the “birthplace of Opera.” When in fact the true birthplace of Opera is Florence. We can credit its development to a group of artists and intellectuals called the Florentine Camerata.
This is extremely important everyone! Please take note of this and the next time you and your fellow construction workers are debating the intricacies of music history, set them straight!
Also, editing to add the little fun fact that one of the Florentine Camerata’s members was Galileo’s dad, Vincenzo Galilei.
I am the very model of a modern Capitano.
That the general population are directly responsible for the amount of pollution occurring a la “carbon footprint” when there are 10 companies producing 70% of the world’s pollution
Huh, odd, why do they do this?
To make the general population think that they’re responsible for the problems caused by the massive uncontrolled exploitation of limited resources by corporations.
(Or in simpler terms; So the general population don’t show the CEOs just how fragile their mortal bodies are.)
No, why do they produce all the emissions?
Combustion produces byproducts, such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and depending on the fuel or the quality of combustion, sulphur oxides and other fantastically poisonous substances that are building up in our limited breathing air and drinking water.
Engines that use this process are called internal combustion engines, they mix the fuel with air and ignite it, this creates heat and pressure, because the big molecules that make up the fuel are broken down into a massive quantity of smaller ones. That pressure then pushes on pistons which turn a crankshaft that can be connected to a transmission in a car, or a generator in a power plant, the hot exhaust gases that make up a lot of the pollution then get forced out of the engine into the air.
Unless you’re asking why specifically those companies are the ones producing the emissions, in which case it’s a matter of the amount of carbon fuel they use to mine/refine/move the materials and build/run the factories, and the transport they use to move their finished product and run all of the processes that lead up to the product being made. All of which drives emissions.
To draw on an example thats incredibly apt right now, considering Utah is now allowing a datacenter that will use 9 GW of power, more than every combined person and business in the state uses.
A data center is designed in CAD software - electrical energy from the grid is used in the computer
The data center is built - Heavy machinery prepares the ground and Concrete is poured - earthmovers use carbon fuel, the concrete manufacturer itself burns fuel to create the concrete, then ships it via trucks to the building site where it is poured, setting concrete also releases carbon dioxide.
The computer components are built - rare earth metals are dug from the ground and refined into chips that are shipped to factories where they are assembled onto circuitboards - the material and manufacture requirements of these components take a lot of fuel, and a lot of highly specialised equipment that is energy intensive
The computer components are shipped to the site - this also takes fuel.
This is all contributing to the emissions cost that the company has racked up, and the datacenter isn’t even active yet.
ALSO, NONE of these examples take into account physical pollution, where crude oil or a carbon product (such as in Palestine… the American one; where a derailed train load of polyvinyl was set on fire and left to uncontrollably burn because it was cheaper than calling a chemical spill team) is either poured into the worlds water from crashed tankers or from drilling platforms (or from military actions where refineries are burned, and we get events like the mass swathe of marine life dieoff thanks to oil being spilled into the ocean)
Hopefully that answers your question, if not you’ll have to ask a different way because I don’t know what you mean when you say “why do they produce emissions?” (The answer is burning things makes emissions, and they’re burning the lot.)
The point they are trying to get at is that the vast majority of carbon produced by these companies is produced to see to the wants and needs of common people, and it is disingenuous to imply that solving climate change would impact no one except these companies shareholders.
Most carbon isn’t being created to build data centers. It is used to build roads, apartments, office buildings, cars, and trains. It is created by people driving cars or using gas stoves or eating hamburgers or running a heat pump on electricity generated in a coal plant. It is created when cheap plastic knick knacks are manufactured in indonesia, shipped across an ocean, and then transported overland to a store where they can be bought, used today, and thrown in the dump the next.
So regardless of where you apply pressure to stymie climate change, common people will be impacted, and pretending otherwise is essentially telling a lie to those common people.
Yeah convenience culture will have to die. To keep food not in plastic and not shipped halfway across the world you’re going to gave to give up getting your favorite flavor of dorito from the gas station at 2am. They won’t be able to package specialty flavors at a plant 600mi away then seal them in airtight nitrogen and ship them all over the country to that stores that are open 24/7 where they’ll be shelf stable for the next few months. You’ll have to order them by mail yourself or make do with local / regional variants made with different ingredients. The kids who stop eating when their dino nuggies have a different breading are just gonna starve (had an ex like that at 25y/o he was exhausting.)
disingenuous to imply that solving climate change would impact no one except these companies shareholders.
Where did I imply that making it so the planet doesnt kill us impacts only the companies?
Most carbon isn’t being created to build data centers.
I used one single example among many, datacentres are a single part of the problem, but a not inconsiderable one given that 7% of the total power consumption of the entire US goes to datacenters.
It is created by people driving cars or using gas stoves or eating hamburgers or running a heat pump on electricity generated in a coal plant. It is created when cheap plastic knick knacks are manufactured in indonesia, shipped across an ocean, and then transported overland to a store where they can be bought, used today, and thrown in the dump the next
In no way am I saying that mass consumption of oil product tat that goes to landfill after a week isn’t part of the problem, given that plastic waste in the air and water is also a major part of pollution and feeding climate change.
I’m not pretending that people aren’t going to be impacted, but I’d much rather a change where people can’t buy useless tat, than one that we’re living in now, where we can buy the tat but where doing so is destroying the planet we live on.
Blaming people for the companies making products worse, advertising disposable plastic items as if it solves the problems we already solved (but its so much cheaper for the company to make things out of plastics and not materials that last, and they can sell it to us ten times over to make up their profits) and then shipping them around the world in boats that use bunker fuel is unsustainable.
I spoke at length about the processes of one small part, but none of what I said was all-encompassing, it was merely a simplified example of one thing among many that make up the system of manufacture and shipping that feeds pollution into our planet for the sake of profits.
Where did I imply that making it so the planet doesnt kill us impacts only the companies?
You implied it when twice you went on long tangents going into the minutiae of the carbon production process while avoiding providing the simple, obvious answer to the question. Why do those companies produce all that carbon? Because they are making things that people want and need.
The problem with this framing is that it implies that climate change exists solely due to a few bad actors, and if we just constrained them or sestroyed them or whatever, then we would all live happily ever after. But this is not the case.
Suppose we round up all the CEOs and major shareholders to these companies tomorrow, and put them on a firing line, and threaten anyone else with the same if they don’t immediately dissolve the companies. Well, after maybe a year or two of a global economic crisis and restructuring of the world’s supply lines, do you think carbon emmissions would have gone down? Probably not. Instead, you would likely have new major players who stepped into the old companies roles. Or maybe now those roles are more dispersed - so instead of 7 companies emmitting all this carbon, we now have 700 million.
Now, I’m not saying that the concentration of global economic power isn’t a problem. But it isn’t the main problem to solve if we want to solve climate change. Because the production of carbon isn’t driven by companies making products, but by consumers demanding products. Nigerians coming out of poverty want dirty two stroke mopeds. Vietnamese pho vendors want propane to power their food carts. Latvian software developers want to display their wealth by driving low end luxury cars. Argentinian housewives want to eat steak for every meal. And remote villiagers in Pakistan want to keep enjoying the power they now have in their homes for only the last few years that comes from the coal plant 100km away. And if we want to snap our fingers and decarbonize the world, then at least some of these people are going to face disruptions to some of these goods.
That doesn’t mean that a decarbonized world has to be worse for everyone. But it means that maybe Latvian software developers need to develop a taste for expensive watches, and maybe Argentinian housewives will need to learn to grill jackfruit, and maybe an NGO needs to pay for rural Pakistanis to have solar panels on their roofs. But the actual number of companies that are the endpoints of pollution based on whatever statistical analysis is fairly irrelivant. Whether it is 7 companies or 700 million, we need to stop the demand for carbon intensive goods that is driving the supply - and that means changing peoples preferences or creating alternatives for those preferences to be met which do not depend on carbon emmissions.
I’m being a bit annoying about it because the companies don’t burn all that crap for fun but, as you laid out, for our collective consumption patterns. I developed the impression that the whole “x companies do y% of emissions!” thing, similar to “no ethical consumption” reminders tends to fulfill a function not aimed at motivating larger-scale changes (e.g. banning animal agriculture wholly instead of making an individual choice to not consume em; banning ICE cars from being produced/sold while creating comprehensive public transport instead of merely biking to work yourself) but at detaching oneself from the role we do actually play in society. (Also, smaller/individual scale weirdoes are a good source of activists that can radiate social structures out into general society)
I’m not saying the “70% of emissions come from 10 companies” fact as a get out of jail ‘I’ll burn tyres in my yard because the companies do worse’ - that’s being part of the problem and not helping in any way.
I 100% agree with your follow up of we need to embrace the fact that we exist as part of a system and our actions have consequences.
My position is and has always been that we need to take better actions to prevent these companies from digging oil out of the ground or the pandemics, famines, resource wars, baseball sized hail, mass flooding, wildfires and supercell tornados are going to only get worse for everyone.
The problem with relying on the mass of society changing their consumption patterns is that the mass of society is too damn poor to even give a damn, let alone scrounge up the extra money it costs to buy the non-polluting version of the commodity they need.
We’ve been trying to implement bottom-up change for 50+ years, and pretty much the only people who have made any voluntary changes are middle-class yuppies.
On the other hand, top down legislation has had an exponentially larger impact on emissions.
To be clear: the direction I’d like to see isn’t ignoring larger-scale changes but embracing that these things are linked. Companies don’t burn fuel for fun, but for profit (or non-capitalist modes of resource allocation - if the central party committee decides to satiate the people’s hunger for meat and cars, that’s also a problem). And the profit there comes from all of us, individually as well as collectively. So action against that probably should also happen on both levels.
I think the issue lies in that the corporations have an incentive to keep the increased carbon footprint and the average person composting or sorting trash for recycling (typical footprint reduction suggestions) does nothing to reduce this incentive. Moving the markets desires away from items with high carbon footprints is a monumental task and one we should strive for but a faster method of reduction would be direct pressure to the corporations exploiting cheap labor that has a higher carbon footprint cost
It’s a nice “gotcha” you’re trying do. These companies emit because they are producing goods and services for us, the people, right?
No.
The point of blaming 10 companies for 70% of emissions, most of whom are fossil fuel energy companies, is that we have the technology and the resources to begin a 100% switch over to cleaner energy sources today. But these 10 companies make obscene profits and use those profits to control the political system and prevent that switchover.
We don’t have to use fossil fuels to maintain our society, but these companies use their influence to make sure we do it anyways.
