Kobolds with a keyboard.

  • 0 Posts
  • 57 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 5th, 2023
  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•What do you think about using LLM to help understand complex non-fictional books? Like philosophy, sociology and psychology?English
    2·
    5 days ago

    Lemmy is overwhelmingly anti-AI; you’ve been around long enough that you really should have known what you were going to get for an answer before you asked this question.

    That said, I’ll offer a more objective take: Based purely on the example you gave, I’d have a difficult time parsing that passage, too, but the LLM summary is much more understandable. If you’re needing to use an LLM to help understand the entire book, maybe it’s not a good book for you; if you’re using it for a paragraph here and there, the result is similar to what you’ve posted, and if you’re taking that answer and returning to the original paragraph to gain a better understanding of the original meaning, rather than taking the LLM at face value, I don’t see any harm in it. (Other than the environmental harm and societal impact, but that’s outside the scope of this discussion, I suspect.)

  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialtoTechnology@lemmy.world•Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering ForEnglish
    11·
    14 days ago

    Parents giving their children these devices, observing excessive attachment, and not cutting them off bear considerable responsibility.

    While I do agree that parents should bear the brunt of the responsibility here, you must realize that kids are resourceful and no amount of parental oversight will stop a determined kid from accessing this content. Parents aren’t in their presence 24/7, and just like a kid whose parents deny them candy can find plenty of ways to obtain it without their parents knowing, the same is true for social media use. It’s the old adage that the more you tighten your grip, the more slips through your fingers.

    liberty

    You keep using that word, but this isn’t really about personal freedoms at all. It’s about companies that saw that their product was causing harm, and actively made the decision to continue promoting that harmful product in the name of profits. Their products were specifically engineered to cause these outcomes, and you’re defending their right to do that. Do you just propose we allow companies to do whatever they want in the name of profits, no matter the cost to society? If not, where do you draw the line? How much harm do they have to knowingly cause before you think it’s too much?

    When risks are open & obvious, such as the overconsumption of certain foods & legal substances, that’s generally viewed as a matter of personal choice rather than unreasonably dangerous product defect.

    We restrict alcohol and cigarette use by underage people, too, actually, because their effects are known to be harmful, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Nobody’s talking about making social media use illegal for adults.

    Basically, I think you’re arguing against social media restrictions for kids which is fine but that’s a completely different discussion. It’s related, but it’s not what this article is about - this article is about holding corporations responsible for bad behavior. If that isn’t what you want to discuss, why are you here?

    However, even supposing such features defectively make the system unreasonably dangerous in a reasonably foreseeable manner, that only demands that service providers provide fair warning. Once duty to warn has been met, users are reasonably aware of risks and responsibility shifts to risk-takers or parents who give children access despite reasonably knowing the risk.

    Okay, I think you’re just not understanding the situation here. Meta did research on the effects of social media. They found that it was harmful. Even after determining that, they continued to promote it as not harmful. Zuckerberg even testified that that evidence that social media was harmful didn’t exist, after they had found evidence that it was. This all came to light because of whistleblower testimony. So even if we accept your premise here, that duty to inform was not met and that’s part of what’s at issue here.

  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialtoTechnology@lemmy.world•Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering ForEnglish
    1565·
    15 days ago

    Here’s a thought experiment: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing?

    Of course not. Because infinite scroll is not inherently harmful. Autoplay is not inherently harmful. Algorithmic recommendations are not inherently harmful. These features only matter because of the content they deliver. The “addictive design” does nothing without the underlying user-generated content that makes people want to keep scrolling.

    This feels like an awful argument to make. It’s not the presence of those things that make Meta and co so shit, it’s the fact that they provably understood the risks and the effects that their design was having, knew that it was harming people, and continued to do it anyway. I don’t care if we’re talking about a little forum run by a Grandma and Grandpa talking about their jam recipes; if they know that they’re causing harm and don’t change their behavior, they should be liable.