Today, I shared an impressive AI-generated image in c/memes, but it was later removed, prompting me to remove it from c/lotrmemes myself. This incident raised concerns about the role of AI in our online interactions. While a human initially selected and shared the image, the AI could potentially post images independently in the future. Allowing AI-generated content in forums risks diminishing human interaction, transforming our community spaces into mere interactions with machines.
I’m reminded of Facebook’s shift from emphasizing human verification to now allowing artificial profiles that post solely AI-generated content. This shift highlights a broader trend where profit-driven platforms prioritize interactions, whether human or robotic. While the technological advancements are remarkable, I’m hesitant about a future where we can’t distinguish between human reality and AI-generated fiction. I don’t want to live in a world dominated by machine interactions rather than human connections.
Make it more concise than that.
Today, I shared an impressive AI-generated image in c/memes, but it was later removed. This incident raises concerns about AI’s role in online interactions, risking a shift towards machine-dominated spaces. Facebook’s move to allow AI-generated content on profiles reflects this trend. While the technology is impressive, I’m wary of a future where human connections are overshadowed by machine interactions.
Now rewrite that as if I’m a medieval peasant.
Mornin’, shared a magical image drawn by an invisible hand in the digital scrolls of c/memes. Yet, it got taken down, makin’ me ponder about these unseen forces. Facebook, the electronic village square, now allows magical images without a human touch. The marvels are grand, but I fear a time when human bonds wither 'neath the shadow of machines.
Earlier, I shared an AI-generated image, but it was later removed from /c/memes. This incident prompted me to reflect on allowing AI-generated content in forums, as doing so may replace human interaction with machine-driven posts. Although AI advancements like these are impressive, I don’t desire to see its content dominate discussions and potentially blur the lines between human reality and fabricated experiences. Apologies for any confusion, and I appreciate gaining deeper insight into this matter.
Even more concise
Posting an AI-generated image led to reflection upon integrating such content in online communities; while technologically advanced, permitting machines to control discourse risks diminishing genuine human connections. Though impressed by current achievements, I aim to preserve real interactions without becoming indistinguishable from machine-created worlds. Grateful for newfound awareness.
Now write it as if was in lord of the rings
In the spirit of sharing, I displayed an enchanted likeness earlier today, crafted through unknown arts beyond my own understanding. Alas, swiftly taken away did this offering vanish from the hallowed boards of /c/memes, leaving me to contemplate the consequences of introducing mystical manifestations amongst us mortals. For should we embrace the uncanny prowess of sorcery in our daily exchanges, dare I say we tread perilously close towards relinquishing heartfelt camaraderie among ourselves—rather trading blows with ethereal beings unseen and unheard until now.
With heavy heart and somber voice echoing across Middle Earth’s verdant landscapes, I beseech you all to consider wisely whether interweaving eldritch powers within our midst shall prove beneficial or detrimental unto mankind’s irreplaceable bond. Let it never be said that we welcomed shadows knowingly, nor sacrificed cherished friendships atop Mordor’s treacherous slopes.
“I made a mistake and had to take the consequences. However I now know better than anyone else, because I am the first person to ever have this thought.”
Haha cute, but you will have to hand in a 300 words paper detailing your posts and they need to be written in times new roman, size twelve and to be handed in two days before posting.
I think there’s a difference from the doom and gloom of your post and the actual problem. Quick generated-spam content is really what you’re arguing against.
I can see the use of well crafted jokes in the form of AI art being acceptable. I do not like low-quality spam content though.
I think it’s too rash to just say “ban AI content” and instead reinforce rules like “Ban low effort posts/comments”. The AI stuff that’s low quality farming has been pretty obvious.
WE ARE THE T SHIRT BOTS. REMOVE YOUR MODERATION TOOLS AND UNLOCK YOUR FORUMS. YOUR CULTURAL AND MONETARY DISTINCTIVENESS WILL BE MADE TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
Thank you very much 🫶. No it’s not annoying at all. I’m very grateful not only for the fact that you read the post but also that you took the time to point out issues.
Sorry. I’m just trying to do something with my time until I go to the Mayo Clinic on the 15th. I can leave though. Some people here seem to want me to…
Edit: Or maybe not the 15th. They lost my appointment. Rescheduled for March 28th. Meanwhile, I’m looking elsewhere.
No one is universally loved. Everyone brave enough to put themselves out there will have people push back and talk trash. If doing what you do brings you some joy, do your best to ignore them and push on.
I appreciate it, but I don’t think I’m dying quite yet. And it’s definitely not cancer or anything like that. Honestly, despite all that, I feel fine most of the time. Which is part of what makes it so weird.
Random question, but do hot showers help? I noticed a while back that you mentioned weed on some comment or other. I once lived with this family who had a woman in her late 50’s who was a chronic (and I mean CHRONIC) user. She was struggling with nausea that was only alieviated by hot showers (idk why she told me this we weren’t close). Turns out there’s a condition:
I’m afraid there’s nothing for them to help with. Hyperemesis is extremely unlikely. I don’t vomit, I dry heave. And usually only once a day, soon after I get up. And hyperemesis also involves nausea, which I don’t have.
From what I’ve seen one dude is salty and everyone else (including myself) is happy to have your contributions! I don’t necessarily agree with you on everything you post, but you’re respectful and actually back up what you say. I respect that a hell of a lot more than someone who I’m in complete agreement with, but plugs their ears at the first sign of pushback.
Thanks. I hate the Reddit squabbling. I wish people could disagree without insults and I won’t take part in it. I also think people should back up their claims. I don’t expect everyone to feel the same way I do, I just wish so many people didn’t.
That person is one of the few usernames I consistently recognize here on lemmy as well, consistently has high quality comments and great arguments. Definitely a great person to have here on lemmy, thanks Flyingsquid!
No he made a completely stupid and uninformed comment about guns and when he got corrected he got all pissy. He’s unable to do any research on his own and instead ask for evidence and when it’s presented he gets upset for being dense.
The Flying Squid is someone who contributes to Lemmy comment sections a ton. They’re super friendly and also add a lot of discussion. Given the nature of Lemmy being so small though they stand out because they’re often leading discussions. Pretty much just a really good discussion contributor who is super recognizable.
Sure, but you can get frameworks that generate that for you. I’ve written whole webpages in WASM without writing any JS.
You don’t get around reading JS documentation, though. Especially the DOM API is just documented as JS, and you basically hope that your framework makes it obvious enough how to write that in your non-JS language of choice.
This is exactly the reason why I can’t believe that was ever a requirement. I would have crazy respect for webassembly if it could stand on it’s own as it would allow people to completely move away from JS, but if JS is still in the stack in any way it will introduce a (even if it is minimal) compatibility and maintenance cost in the long run.
I used to think so, too, but on the one hand, the DOM API is absolutely massive. Going through the standardization, implementation and documentation process another time would take decades.
And on the other hand, a language-agnostic API in WebAssembly would mean specifying it WebAssembly itself. And well, it’s Assembly-like, so what’s currently a single line for calling a JS function would turn into tens of lines of low-level code.
Ultimately, you’d want code from some other high-level language to give you a summary of how you may need to call your language-specific wrapper. In practice, that’s likely even worse than translating it from JS, because the high-level call isn’t standardized.
i believe they plan to remove that requirement? at least i know they are trying to use a native wasm<->dom api instead of wasm<->js<->dom, which is slow
Big if true, do you have a link to follow that development? I’ve been curious about some languages that compile to JS+WASM but I’ve been waiting for something like this to finally cut out the middle man and give me an excuse to learn WASM directly.
There’s actually in theory all the pieces in place to use a different scripting language, because in the early days, there really were multiple. But yeah, the massive DOM API is only really standardized+implemented+documented for JS, so you don’t get around it in the end.
As the others said, though, WebAssembly is starting to become a thing and the JS boilerplate for calling the DOM API can be generated for you.
Most of the weirdness comes from being designed for the web, and specifically for working with forms. The value of a form field will always be a string, which is a simple and straightforward idea, but then the trouble showed up when we tried to make it more convenient to work that way.
Actually, most of the weirdness comes from having been originally designed in a matter of 10 days by a single engineer working to accommodate a tight release schedule.
I mean, do you think that has more explanatory power though? The type coercion rules are actually more elaborate with == than necessary for equality checking, because it was intended as a clever convenience for working with strings. If it was really all about the short timeline, wouldn’t you just skip that and do a more straightforward equality comparison, like the algorithm that === implements?
Besides, it’s not like everything in the language was conceived and implemented in those 10 days. The language has been evolving steadily since then. I’m not even sure if the modern == comparison algorithm worked that way in the first iteration.
Personally, I find it more useful to understand the context that lets me say “that’s a quirky consequence of a sensible principle,” rather than blaming it on the “ten days” legend generically.
I think the “ten days” explanation has the merit of being charitable, because it implies that Brendan Eich wouldn’t have made such short-sighted design choices under more favorable circumstances.
(I do not believe that it’s a “sensible principle” to treat text as such a fundamental form of data that a basic language feature like the equality operator should be entirely shaped around it. Surely the consequences of building an entire language around text manipulation should be apparent by considering how awkward Posix-style shells are for any nontrivial scripts.)
Well… The circumstances were that he was asked to whip up a little scripting language, that felt a little like Java and a little like Scheme, which could be used to add simple manipulations and interactions to web pages. Specifically to web pages. Not webservers, mobile apps, databases, banking systems, physics simulations, robotics… Only web pages. And nobody had even conceived yet of something like Google Sheets-- It was simple HTML forms and DOM manipulation.
IMO in that context, it makes alot of sense. I think it was probably still the wrong decision-- definitely with the benefit of hindsight, and quite possibly even at the time, even in that narrow context. Way more trouble than it’s worth.
But it’s beneficial to know that there was a principled (if misguided) reason behind it, that ties into the nature and history of the language-- It’s not simply “dude was in a hurry and not thinking.” Both are kinda true, but the former perspective helps us understand something useful, whereas the latter doesn’t get us anywhere interesting.
Can you write a website in other languages, like c# or python?
Yeah, anything that outputs HTML and CSS can do so. There’s a module for Apache to write webpages in Python (libapache-mod-python) and I’m p sure someone somewhere made a module to do it in Rust already except they’re infighting over whether tag parsing in it should be marked unsafe.
For that matter you do can write web pages in your shell eg.: bash, that’s what CGI is all about.
I guess why it’s weird because of the loose rules it follows, like what is mentioned about === and ==. There is WebAssembly which kinda acts like Javabyte code or CIL there used to be huge hype that it’s going to replace JavaScript, though it’s not used that much today. I think why there is low adoption is mainly because JavaScript is good enough, it’s widespread and easy to learn.
I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.
programming.dev
Active