Opinionhaver
@Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
- Comment on We pay companies for products that we never truly own. When they mess-up, they decide what the mess-up is worth. If we mess-up and think we own their products, they can sue and put us in jail. 18 hours ago:
For selling hacking tools - not for modifying their personal device.
- Comment on We pay companies for products that we never truly own. When they mess-up, they decide what the mess-up is worth. If we mess-up and think we own their products, they can sue and put us in jail. 21 hours ago:
So your issue isn’t that you don’t actually own the DVDs you paid for, but rather that you’re not allowed to run an unlicensed cinema.
- Comment on We pay companies for products that we never truly own. When they mess-up, they decide what the mess-up is worth. If we mess-up and think we own their products, they can sue and put us in jail. 23 hours ago:
Pirated movies are not something you’ve paid for.
- Comment on We pay companies for products that we never truly own. When they mess-up, they decide what the mess-up is worth. If we mess-up and think we own their products, they can sue and put us in jail. 1 day ago:
What? Whose gone to jail for thinking that they own a product they’ve bought?
- Comment on Up to half of the earth's population doesn't have an inner monologue, up to half of the earth has never had a shower thought 1 day ago:
Probably a good thing they asked volunteers interested in the study to do it instead of someone such as yourself, who isn’t.
Ignoring the ad hominem, I don’t see how that’s supposed to be an argument against what I said - it only highlights that the participants weren’t even randomly selected. If you’re cherry-picking participants, there’s even less reason to generalize the findings to the entire population.
As I mentioned in my other comment: you could just as easily run a study asking people to self-report whether they have a blind spot in their visual field, and everyone would say no - and everyone would be wrong.
Just because someone isn’t aware of something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I’m not asking you to change your opinion - I’m simply saying I’m highly skeptical of it.
- Comment on Up to half of the earth's population doesn't have an inner monologue, up to half of the earth has never had a shower thought 1 day ago:
That’s still just asking people, which isn’t exactly the most scientific method. If you were to stop me and ask what I was thinking, a lot of the time I wouldn’t be able to tell you - but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t thinking. Thinking without being consciously aware of it is basically what I’m doing all day, every day. It’s mostly when I try to just be and let the world come to me that I become aware of how quickly I get lost in thought.
- Comment on Up to half of the earth's population doesn't have an inner monologue, up to half of the earth has never had a shower thought 1 day ago:
Internal monologue is entirely a subjective experience, and I don’t think there’s any other way to study it than by asking people. Just because someone isn’t consciously aware of it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Just like if we asked people whether they have a blind spot in their visual field, everyone would say no - and everyone would be wrong.
- Comment on Up to half of the earth's population doesn't have an inner monologue, up to half of the earth has never had a shower thought 1 day ago:
I refuse to believe this statistic. The only way to study this is by asking people and I bet most simply aren’t aware that they do have it. I didn’t pay much attention to it either untill I started meditating and now I’m painfully aware of it.
- Comment on Half a million Spotify users are unknowingly grooving to an AI-generated band 4 days ago:
You’re free to say “I hate all AI-generated content” - but the issue isn’t what you believe you hate, it’s whether you can know that what you hate is in fact AI-generated.
You don’t need 100% detection accuracy to hate some AI content. But if you claim to hate all AI content, then the reliability of your detection absolutely matters. Because if even one piece slipped by - and you didn’t hate it - your statement is no longer true.
And considering how much AI-generated content is already out there - usually unlabeled and increasingly indistinguishable - it’s statistically improbable that everything you’ve consumed and didn’t hate was human-made. You may feel confident about your preferences, but you’re arguing from certainty where none is possible. That’s not a logical stance - it’s ideological.
- Comment on Half a million Spotify users are unknowingly grooving to an AI-generated band 4 days ago:
That would require you to be able to detect AI-generated content with 100% accuracy, which simply isn’t the case.
What you actually have is a prejudice - you dislike content when you suspect or find out it’s AI-generated. But there’s undoubtedly AI-generated content you’ve encountered without realizing, and likely didn’t mind. Just as there’s human-made content you dislike.
You don’t hate all AI-generated content. You hate the idea of AI-generated content. That reaction is ideological, not purely about quality.
- Comment on Half a million Spotify users are unknowingly grooving to an AI-generated band 4 days ago:
You’re not really engaging with what I said. I’m not claiming everyone who listens enjoys it, just pointing out that some clearly do - and if enough people are voluntarily replaying it or adding it to playlists, then the “slop” label starts sounding more like prejudice than critique.
There’s always filler and mediocrity in any medium - human or AI. We just don’t call it “slop” when it’s made by a garage band or a beginner solo artist. That word feels like it’s doing extra work here - as if the low quality is inherent to all AI content independent of the end result. And that’s exactly the bias I’m pointing to.
You can say it’s “AI slop,” but if it passes for music some people want to listen to, then maybe it’s time to reevaluate what that label is even supposed to mean.
- Comment on Half a million Spotify users are unknowingly grooving to an AI-generated band 4 days ago:
It’s not exactly “slop” if people are listening to it and presumably enjoying it. That just goes to show it’s not AI-generated content in general that people dislike - it’s bad AI-generated content. If the content is good, people are drawn to it regardless of who or what made it - as it should be.
- Comment on If nudity was more widely accepted, tattoos would be more popular. 5 days ago:
They couldn’t be much more popular than what they already are. Seems that nowdays it’s rare to not have any.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 days ago:
my SO actually wears only the bottom of the bikini and goes bra less to the beach, because she says it’s unfair I can free my nipples and she can not
Doesn’t sound like she can’t.
- Comment on Men are opening up about mental health to AI instead of humans 6 days ago:
I only have the beer part of this equation figured out.
- Comment on Men are opening up about mental health to AI instead of humans 6 days ago:
LLMs have no intentions. They only do what the user asks them to.
- Comment on I repainted the hood of my truck using rattle cans 6 days ago:
Ouch. That’s half of the value of my entire truck.
- Comment on AI is learning to lie, scheme, and threaten its creators 6 days ago:
The current generation of "AI"s are trumped-up autocorrect
LLMs are AI. There’s a common misconception about what ‘AI’ actually means. Many people equate AI with the advanced, human-like intelligence depicted in sci-fi - like HAL 9000, JARVIS, Ava, Mother, Samantha, Skynet, and GERTY. These systems represent a type of AI called AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), designed to perform a wide range of tasks and demonstrate a form of general intelligence similar to humans.
However, AI itself doesn’t imply general intelligence. Even something as simple as a chess-playing robot qualifies as AI. Although it’s a narrow AI, excelling in just one task, it still fits within the AI category. So, AI is a very broad term that covers everything from highly specialized systems to the type of advanced, adaptable intelligence that we often imagine. Think of it like the term ‘plants,’ which includes everything from grass to towering redwoods - each different, but all fitting within the same category.
- Comment on I repainted the hood of my truck using rattle cans 1 week ago:
Around 300 euros and like 4 evenings. I’m going to do it again as I have a replacement door already waiting.
- Comment on I repainted the hood of my truck using rattle cans 1 week ago:
I had sanded it to 600 grit after primer but not since that. I might wet sand it with 2000 grit once it’s fully cured and then polish it. It does look pretty good already tough. It has evened out significantly while drying.
- Comment on I repainted the hood of my truck using rattle cans 1 week ago:
It wasn’t quite that much but they aint cheap.
- Comment on I repainted the hood of my truck using rattle cans 1 week ago:
Way more than it needed to - but if I were to do it from scratch knowing what I know now, I’d say: 3 cans of primer, 5 cans of base coat, and 3 cans of clear coat. That’s 1 coat of primer, 3 coats of paint, and 2 coats of clear coat.
- Comment on When voting for judges in elections, how are you supposed to know which are good? (Since none of them publicly express their political opinions, judges are *supposed* to be neutral) 1 week ago:
As far as I know, many of the judges Trump appointed during his first term are now making rulings against his interests - despite having been seen as “aligned” when appointed. So in other words: you can’t know. Just make sure they’re competent and fit for the task.
- Comment on I repainted the hood of my truck using rattle cans 1 week ago:
I used Wurth zinc primer, SprayMax Acrylic base coat mixed to match my truck’s color and SprayMax Clear coat.
With the 2K clear coat you take the red cap and attach it to the bottom of the can. Once you press it down it breaks the hardener capsule inside the can.
- Comment on I repainted the hood of my truck using rattle cans 1 week ago:
I didn’t realize to take one before I started sanding it but here’s one from when I bought it. There was in total 4 dents on it and few stone chips that had started rusting.
- Comment on I repainted the hood of my truck using rattle cans 1 week ago:
There are a handful of dust specs embedded in the clear coat, but I consider that acceptable for an 18-year-old truck painted with rattle cans in an open, windy garage with a gravel floor.
- Submitted 1 week ago to diy@slrpnk.net | 20 comments
- Comment on Why don't more people use Bilibili instead of YouTube? 1 week ago:
Because I have no issues with YouTube. I’d much rather use American spyware than Chinese one.
- Comment on Does using ChatGPT change your brain activity? Study sparks debate 1 week ago:
Everything you do changes your brain activity.
This isn’t about using ChatGPT broadly, but specifically about the difference between writing an essay with the help of an LLM versus doing it without. And in this case, I think it all comes down to how you use it. If you just have it write the essay for you, then of course it won’t stimulate your brain to the same extent - that’s like hiring someone to go to the gym for you.
Personally, the way I use it to help with my writing is by doing all the writing myself first. Only after that do I let it check for grammatical errors and help improve the clarity and flow by making minor structural adjustments - while keeping the tone and message of my original draft intact.
For me, the purpose of writing is to convert abstract thoughts into language and pass that information along, hoping the reader understands it well enough that it forms the same idea in their mind. If ChatGPT can help untangle my word salad and make that process more effective, I welcome it.
- Comment on Wealth of Global 1% Has Skyrocketed by Over $33 Trillion Since 2015: Report 1 week ago:
The ones stopping us from making a change are the same people who are completely unaffected by others just complaining about them online. The ones most affected by hatred and anger are the hateful and angry people themselves - and the people around them.
