merc
@merc@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on PewDiePie: I'm DONE with Google 1 hour ago:
Yeah, even an established creator is going to have a hard time moving their audience.
If YouTube weren’t a near monopoly it would be different. Then other companies would be competing for creators.
Making it worse is section 1201 of the DMCA. It makes it a crime to circumvent access controls. In the past, Facebook was able to grow by providing tools to interface with MySpace. People didn’t have to abandon their MySpace friends, they could communicate with them through Facebook, and Facebook could ensure that messages sent on its platform arrived to people still on MySpace. But, if you tried that today Facebook has access controls in place that make that a crime. The same applies to YouTube. Nobody can build a seamless “migrate away from YouTube” experience because YouTube will use the DMCA to block them.
The governments of the world need to bring back antitrust with teeth and force interoperability.
- Comment on My parents wanted serotonin, so they had a baby. now i am forced to wage slave for the worst of us. 1 hour ago:
The whole thing is pretty ridiculous. You don’t get to consent to being born. You don’t get to consent to having who you have as parents. And, legally they get to make every important decision about your life for 18 years.
Even if you have parents who actually loved you and showed it, who aren’t abusive, who did the best they could, you’re still stuck in a relationship you didn’t get a chance to consent to. Even “good” parents often mess up their kids by trying to live their lives through those kids. Like, parents who are failed athletes trying to push their kids into sports. Or, parents who miss having little kids around trying to guilt their kids into providing them grandkids.
And then there’s the whole expectation of taking care of the parents when they get old and sick. Yes, I get it, they changed their kids’ diapers when they were young. The kids are just returning the favour. But, those kids never had a choice. The parents (for the most part) chose to have kids, and chose to do that work. The kids never agreed to the terms and conditions that said they had to help out their parents when their bodies started failing.
Suicide is selfish, but ultimately, it is your life. It’s unfair that other people get an opportunity to tie all kinds of strings to you before your brain has even developed enough to understand the concepts of live and death.
Then again, we’re just animals. We only exist because a machine which exists to propagate its genes turned out to be effective at propagating its genes. Nature is brutal, and even if we don’t always admit it, we’re still part of nature. There’s nothing fair about it. It just is.
- Comment on A Tech-Backed Influencer Wants to Replace Teachers With AI 12 hours ago:
I’m not even convinced that an “AI tutor” is better than nothing.
Probably better than sitting in a room staring at a blank wall. But, is it even as good as playing with lego? Playing tag with friends? Drawing with crayons? Taking a pet for a walk?
- Comment on Tesla Robotaxi Freaks Out and Drives into Oncoming Traffic on First Day 1 day ago:
All other things being equal, it would save a lot of lives to replace every human driver with a Waymo car right now. They’re already significantly better than the average driver.
But, there are a few caveats. One is that so far they’ve only ever driven under relatively easy conditions. They don’t do any highway driving, and they’ve never driven in snow. Another one is that because they all share one “mind”, we don’t know if there are failure modes that would affect every car. Every human driver is different, but every human is more or less the same. If a human sees a 100 km/h or 60 mph speed limit on a narrow, twisty, suburban street with poor visibility, most of them are probably going to assume it was a mistake and won’t actually try to drive 100 km/h. We don’t know if a robo-vehicle will do that. AFAIK they haven’t found any way to emulate “common sense”. They might also freak out during an eclipse because they’ve never been trained for that kind of lighting. Or they might try to drive at normal speeds when visibility is obscured by forest fire smoke.
There’s also the side effects of replacing millions of drivers with robo-cars. What will it do to people who drive for a living? Should Google/Waymo be paying most of the cost of retraining them? Paying their bills until they can find a new job? What will it do to cities? Will it mean that we no longer need parking lots because cars come and drop people off and then head off to take care of someone else? Or will it mean empty cars roaming the city causing gridlock and making it hell for pedestrians and bikers? Will people now want to live in the city because they don’t need to pay for parking and can get a car easily whenever they need one? Or will people now want to live even farther out into the suburbs / rural areas because they don’t need to drive and can work in the car on the way into the city?
Personally, I’m hopeful. I think they could make cities better. But, who knows. We should move slowly until we figure things out.
- Comment on Tesla Robotaxi Freaks Out and Drives into Oncoming Traffic on First Day 2 days ago:
a silicon valley AI project to put transit workers out of work
Silicon valley doesn’t have objectives like “putting transit workers out of work”. They only care about growth and profit.
In this case, the potential for growth is replacing every driver, not merely targeting transit workers. If they can do that, it would mean millions fewer cars on the road, and millions fewer cars being produced. Great for the environment, but yeah, some people might lose their jobs. But, other new jobs might be created.
The original car boom also destroyed all kinds of jobs. Farriers, stable hands, grooms, riding instructors, equine veterinarians, horse trainers, etc. But, should we have held back technology so those jobs were all around today? We’d still have streets absolutely covered in horse poop, and horses regularly dying in the street, along with all the resulting disease. Would that be a better world? I don’t think so.
It’s another project to get AI money and destroy labor rights.
Waymo obviously uses a form of AI, but they’ve been around a lot longer than the current AI / LLM boom. It’s 16 years old as a Google project, 21 years old if you consider the original Stanford team. As for destroying labour rights, sure, every capitalist company wants weaker labour rights. But, that includes the car companies making normal human-driven cars, it includes the companies manufacturing city buses and trains. There’s nothing special about Waymo / Google in that regard.
Sure, strengthening labour rights would be a good idea, but I don’t think it really has anything to do with Waymo. But, sure, we should organize and unionize Google if that’s at all possible.
Transit is incredibly underfunded and misregulated in California/the USA
Sure. That has nothing to do with Waymo though.
robotaxis are a criminal misinvestment in resources.
Misinvestment by whom? Google? What should Google be investing in instead?
- Comment on Tesla Robotaxi Freaks Out and Drives into Oncoming Traffic on First Day 2 days ago:
AFAIK they’re as safe as SawStop table saws. There has only ever been one collision involving a Waymo car that resulted in a serious injury. It was when a driver in another car, who was fleeing from police, sideswiped two cars, went onto the sidewalk and hit 2 pedestrians. One of the cars that was hit was a Waymo car, and the passenger was injured. Obviously, this wasn’t the fault of Waymo, but it was included in their list of 25 crashes with injuries, and was the only one involving a serious injury.
Of the rest, 17 involved the Waymo car being rear-ended. 3 involved another car running a red light and hitting the Waymo car. 2 were sideswipes caused by the other driver. 2 were vehicles turning left across the path of the Waymo car, one a bike, one a car. One was a Waymo car turning left and being hit on the passenger side. It’s possible that a few of these cases involving a collision between a vehicle turning and a vehicle going straight could be at least partially blamed on the Waymo car. But, based on the descriptions of the crashes it certainly wasn’t making an obvious error.
IMO it would be hard to argue that the cars aren’t already significantly safer than the average driver. There are still plenty of bugs to be ironed out, but for the most part they don’t seem to be safety-related bugs.
If the math were simple and every Waymo car on the road meant one human driver off the road with no other consequences or costs, it would be a no-brainer to start replacing human drivers with Waymo’s tech. But, of course, nothing is ever that simple.
- Comment on Tesla Robotaxi Freaks Out and Drives into Oncoming Traffic on First Day 2 days ago:
Waymo times than Teslas?
- Comment on Tesla Robotaxi Freaks Out and Drives into Oncoming Traffic on First Day 3 days ago:
Imagine you’re the guy who invented SawStop, the table saw that can detect fingers touching the saw blade and immediately bury the blade in an aluminum block to avoid cutting off someone’s finger. Your system took a lot of R&D, it’s expensive, requires a custom table saw with specialized internal parts so it’s much more expensive than a normal table saw, but it works, and it works well. You’ve now got it down that someone can go full-speed into the blade and most likely not even get the smallest cut. Every time the device activates, it’s a finger saved. Yeah, it’s a bit expensive to own. And, because of the safety mechanism, every time it activates you need to buy a few new parts which aren’t cheap. But, an activation means you avoided having a finger cut off, so good deal! You start selling these devices and while it’s not replacing every table saw sold, it’s slowly being something that people consider when buying.
Meanwhile, some dude out of Silicon Valley hears about this, and hacks up a system that just uses a $30 webcam, an AI model that detects fingers (trained exclusively on pudgy white fingers of Silicon Valley executives) and a pinball flipper attached to a rubber brake that slows the blade to a stop within a second when the AI model sees a finger in danger.
This new device, the, “Finger Saver” doesn’t work very well at all. In demos with a hotdog, sometimes the hotdog is sawed in half. Sometimes the saw blade goes flying out of the machine into the audience. After a while, the company has the demo down so that when they do it in extremely controlled conditions, it does stop the hotdog from being sawed in half, but it does take a good few chunks out of it before the blade fully stops. It doesn’t work at all with black fingers, but the Finger Saver company will sell you some cream-coloured paint that you can paint your finger with before using it if your finger isn’t the right shade.
Now, imagine if the media just referred to these two devices interchangeably as “finger saving devices”. Imagine if the Finger Saver company heavily promoted their things and got them installed in workshops in high schools, telling the shop teachers that students are now 100% safe from injuries while using the table saw, so they can just throw out all safety equipment. When, inevitably, someone gets a serious wound while using a “Finger Saver” the media goes on a rant about whether you can really trust “finger saving devices” at all.
Anyhow, this is a rant about Waymo vs. Tesla.
- Comment on the seven deadly companies 3 days ago:
Wait, you’re saying that The Hellbound Heart isn’t the original? Next thing you’ll be trying to convince me that Pope Greg is innocent of plagiarism, because he actually didn’t steal from Se7en.
- Comment on the seven deadly companies 3 days ago:
I bet you also think the original “A Christmas Carol” was the one with the muppets.
- Comment on the seven deadly companies 3 days ago:
That’s only 6 companies.
- Comment on Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever 4 days ago:
Now you just need to slay the Apostrophe Monster.
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 4 days ago:
Who’s consenting?
- Comment on Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever 4 days ago:
Except Gates is a piece of shit. You don’t need to shout at Gates, but nobody should ever meet him and treat him like a human.
- Comment on Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever 4 days ago:
No she wasn’t. She was never part of IBM at all.
She simply knew the chairman of IBM because they both served on the United Way board of directors. She was also a lawyer, as was Gates’ dad, which is a likely reason that the contract that Bill signed with IBM was so incredibly friendly to Microsoft.
- Comment on Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever 4 days ago:
Who’s Gate?
- Comment on Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever 4 days ago:
If Microsoft hadn’t been around Apple would have probably defined the early PC era. The Apple II was released in 1977, 4 years before IBM decided to enter the home market with the PC.
Or Commodore might have been the one to dominate. They sold about 5 million Amigas.
Or it could have been NeXT after Jobs was forced out of Apple and started a new computer business.
The winner turned out to be Microsoft, but desktop computers were well on their way to being a standard thing long before Microsoft / IBM got into the market.
- Comment on Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever 4 days ago:
it’s the reason so few people use FOSS products.
It’s a reason. Another reason is all the stuff that Microsoft was found guilty of doing during their conviction for abusing their monopoly.
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 4 days ago:
The alternative isn’t “nothing”, it’s getting precious cultural artifacts out of high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed.
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 4 days ago:
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
Which people? The government? So in Afghanistan it’s up to the Taliban? If you don’t trust that the government of a country represents the will of the people, then how do you determine what the people want?
And, again, which people? Is a totem pole in a museum in Canada the property of the Canadian people? Or is it something that belongs to the Haida people, and it doesn’t matter what other Canadians want? If it is up to the Haida, it is up to the Council of the Haida Nation, or is it up to the band the original artist belonged to?
What about a Tatar artifact found in Donetsk? Who gets control over that? Is it the Russians since they occupy Donetsk? The Ukrainians because they used to occupy it? Do you have to study the blood of various Ukrainian people to figure out who has the most surviving Tatar DNA?
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 4 days ago:
if a museum feels under threat
If you run a museum in Afghanistan and are afraid that the Taliban is going to execute you unless you destroy some blasphemous statue, are you going to risk your life to send the artifact to the British Museum, or are you just going to destroy it? Yeah, some heroes will definitely risk their lives, but most won’t.
- Comment on Checkmate, Round Earthers 🌍 1 week ago:
If you were standing on the Liberty National Golf Club in New Jersey about 2km from the Statue of Liberty (height 93m), from the bottom to the top it would be about 2.5 degrees.
If you were looking at the Eiffel Tower at 6000 km away from NJ, and the earth were flat, the Eiffel Tower (height 312m), from the bottom to the top it would be about 0.003 degrees from bottom to top. If you could line it up so that you could see the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower at the same time, the Eiffel Tower would appear to come up to the first 10 cm of the Statue of Liberty’s base. That’s actually a little bigger than I would have expected, but still tiny.
I wonder if, even with binoculars, someone could even resolve something that small. Ignoring everything like ocean waves interfering, vegetation getting in the way and atmospheric interference, my guess is that it would be just too small to be seen from that far away without some ultra-powerful telescope.
- Comment on Minnesota Shooting Suspect Allegedly Used Data Broker Sites to Find Targets’ Addresses 1 week ago:
The last major American privacy law, the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988 by Reagan. The only reason it happened is that politicians realized that their privacy was affected. Robert Bork was going through his Supreme Court confirmation hearings and someone got a hold of the tapes he had rented and published them.
Politicians were worried about their own personal privacy, so they passed a new law to protect the privacy of people’s video tape rentals.
Maybe the fact that the targets here were politicians will mean that something will happen with data privacy, for once.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 1 week ago:
Keep Goodhart’s law in mind:
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 1 week ago:
No, it’s because the opposition is the establishment, and violence is a tool the establishment uses to… well, stay established.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 1 week ago:
Okay but who’s the one defining a protest as violent?
The same people who write the history books. History is written by the winners, and when they write those books the protests that led to them winning are written up as being non-violent. It’s like “terrorists” vs. “freedom fighters”. If they succeed, they get to write the history books and they’re freedom fighters. If they lose, the other side writes the history books and they’re terrorists.
- Comment on YouTube "search results" 1 week ago:
It’s like it just gives up after about 8 results. “These 8 results don’t contain what you want? I give up. Here, just watch one of these videos instead.”
Screw you, just show me the rest of the results, I swear it’s in the top 30 results.
- Comment on YouTube "search results" 1 week ago:
You search for “blah”, Google gives you a bunch of bad results, and serves up 5 ads. Nothing matches what you want, so you search again “blah but not foo” and you get another 5 ads. If search were good you’d only see 5 ads, but because it sucks you get 10 ads.
If Google had real competitors, bad search results might mean people would give up and use a competitor’s search, but because they have a search monopoly, they can enshittify their results and show even more ads without losing users.
- Comment on AGI achieved 🤖 2 weeks ago:
So could tulip bulbs, for a while.
- Comment on AGI achieved 🤖 2 weeks ago:
Can you explain the difference between understanding the question and generating the words that might logically follow?
I mean, it’s pretty obvious. Take someone like Rowan Atkinson whose death has been misreported multiple times. If you ask a computer system “Is Rowan Atkinson Dead?” you want it to understand the question and give you a yes/no response based on actual facts in its database. A well designed program would know to prioritize recent reports as being more authoritative than older ones. It would know which sources to trust, and which not to trust.
An LLM will just generate text that is statistically likely to follow the question. Because there have been many hoaxes about his death, it might use that as a basis and generate a response indicating he’s dead. But, because those hoaxes have also been debunked many times, it might use that as a basis instead and generate a response indicating that he’s alive.
So, if he really did just die and it was reported in reliable fact-checked news sources, the LLM might say “No, Rowan Atkinson is alive, his death was reported via a viral video, but that video was a hoax.”
but why should we assume that shows some lack of understanding
Because we know what “understanding” is, and that it isn’t simply finding words that are likely to appear following the chain of words up to that point.