Nope. I don’t talk about myself like that.
So now… I’m supposed to manage company assets and workers private assets on company paid infrastructure? In what world is this a sane feature request? Who green-lit this?
As a default behavior this is stupid as shit. I could see this being an “added benefit” optionally. Not that I’d ever want to use it personally… but backup storage is a cost and some people don’t want to pay it.
You’re wrong and didn’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation.
So you think that out of all the hate on the internet… NONE of it is constructed shit in people’s own head?(keep in the mind that the article itself talks about personality disorders and DSM-5, literally talking about things like schizophrenia and ADHD… mental disorders that affect how we think are in that book). That this number is so infallibly 0% that my thought doesn’t contribute ANY meaningful value to discuss at all? You sure that it contributed nothing to the conversation and that’s why you downvoted? Cause it would appear to me that you’ve just chosen to ignore the words, ascribe your own meaning to stuff that wasn’t there and then downvoted because you didn’t like it.
It’s clear that this is happening on the internet in many cases. In saner parts of the internet (sometimes even here on lemmy) you’ll see two people arguing, a misconception clear up, and magically all the “hate” dissolved away and both parties walk away amicably.
Hate is stuff like: ableism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hate
It only means that as an adjective, or under pretense where it’s clear that we’re talking about a class of people, if that’s the case it wasn’t clear to me and I just took it as a general overall “the world seems more hateful”. Which it wasn’t used any other way in the comments up to this point this way nor the article itself. So now you’ve constructed some other thing that nobody has referenced just so you can argue some other point that nobody else was apparently making. Keep in mind that the whole thread started with “Hostile” from the article, and not “hate”. The article doesn’t reference anything about any specific classes of people, and even talks about personality disorders (so medical perspective) rather than " ableism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia" and other… uh… character flaws(? might not be the correct phrase to use but maybe the point comes across) that shitty people have.
Edit: Oh and I don’t care about downvotes. But the fact that YOU downvoted the comment was part of the point. It literally is adding context to the actual discussion we’re actively having. It’s directly related behavioral response that’s worthy of discussing in this particular discussion. Trust me I get down-voted plenty on Lemmy and couldn’t care less otherwise. Usually for not immediately jumping on a bandwagon.
Okay? I never said “ALL HATE on the internet is bullshit”… I said “I wonder how much is just people constructing shit in their own head.”
This is exactly my point. You chose to interpret my words in a way that I clearly would have never intended if you actually spent time to read the words and understand them for what they were rather than some magical interpretation that clearly was never said.
Edit: Thanks for the downvote too! Proves the point further.
Edit2: And on your specific point I would argue otherwise. In the past, humans would just kill each other rather than yelling words through a machine. Literal murder -> Mean words is a de-escalation. We can do better for sure… do not misconstrue that, but to claim that we’re more hateful now, when history shows us murdering each other for less is a bit silly of a stance to take.
but it takes tow to argue
Eh… It really doesn’t though does it? One side can be sincerely stating points of fact/logic and others often can and do often ascribe that as “you’re a terrible person for saying that!”.
We are all responsible for what we say , good and bad
Good and bad are subjective though. There is often no black and white. I often cite and source things to show that I’m not stating anything as a matter of opinion… and out of the blue some rando comes out and tries ascribing some sense of moral straw-man claiming that I must believe something or another. Here’s an example from literally last night…
I made no statement that could even be construed as putting words in other people’s mouths… yet someone straw-manned me by definition (and didn’t even know the word for it) by Smee there trying to make some grand point that nobody was even making at that point but they thought I was.
Edit: Actually you don’t even need to look at an entirely different thread… Just look at the other response to me. Someone who wasn’t even in the conversation comes out of the blue and ascribes something I never said nor could ever have been construed as and took it to some straw-man end game nonsense.
B) demonstrates that even video evidence can be completely fabricated from whole cloth, and the opposition is more than capable of doing so to serve their own interests
It’s a victim impact statement. It’s not evidence. Victim Impact Statements are provided/read/whatever AFTER the finding of guilt, but before sentencing.
There’s just so many uncaring shits online.
I wonder how much “hate” on the internet is this… but the reality is that is how you “see” them in your head rather than what they’re actually saying/believe. A lot of negative responses to some of the things I say is a strawman of what I actually believe/said.
also, doesn’t that make this entire thing worse?
No? This is literally a Victim Impact Statement. We see these all the time after the case has determined guilt and before sentencing. This is the opportunity granted to the victims to outline how they feel on the matter.
There have been countless court cases where the victims say things like “I know that my husband would have understood and forgiven [… drone on for a 6 page essay]” or even done this exact thing, but without the “AI” video/audio (home videos with dubbed overlay of a loved one talking about what the deceased person would want/think about it). It’s not abnormal and has been accepted as a way for the aggrieved to voice their wishes to the court. All that’s changed here was the presentation. This didn’t affect the finding of if the person was guilty as it was played after the finding and was only played before sentencing. This is also the customary time where impact statements are made. The “AI” didn’t make the script. This is just a mildly fancier impact statement and that’s it. She could have dubbed it over home video with a fiverr voice actor. Would that change how you feel about it? I see no evidence that the court treated this anything different than any other impact statement. I don’t think anyone would be fooled that the dead person is magically alive and directly making the statement. It’s clear who made it the whole time.
The deceased’s sister wrote the script. AI/LLMs didnt write anything. It’s in the article. So the assumptions you made for the middle two paragraphs dont really apply to this specific news article.
Waaah cry more!
I added to the conversation by answering the question directly asked. Which someone who read the article would have known the answer for.
I’m sorry that reading comprehension is hard for you.
Acting like more than half of the comments on this post aren’t arguing in bad faith and thinking that the AI generated everything wholesale (content and script included) just shows how delusional you all are.
Edit: The funny part is that mkwt, the person I replied to, updooted the post. meaning that they legitimately found that information useful since they went out of their way to updoot. So you, and the other 5 people who don’t understand how to read, can pound sand.
Nah. That Doom Guys MO. Rip and tear until it’s done.
doom 2016
Is a video game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(2016_video_game)
In preparing her victim impact statement for the court, she struggled to find a way to properly represent her brother’s voice
Should clarify that the woman wrote the script. The AI just generated the voice and image. The AI read the woman’s script who wrote it in the tone of her brother putting aside her own feelings.
The 37-year-old Army combat veteran’s family created the AI statement using a previously recorded video, a picture and a script written by the victim’s sister, Stacey Wales.
“I said, ‘I have to let him speak,’ and I wrote what he would have said, and I said, ‘That’s pretty good, I’d like to hear that if I was the judge,’” Wales told AZFamily.
From the article. Where Wales is his sister.
Wales herself is not ready to forgive Horcasitas, but when she wrote the script, she says she knew her brother would speak of forgiveness. “He stood for people, and for God, and for love,” she says.
From a related article. https://www.azfamily.com/2025/05/06/chandler-road-rage-shooting-victim-speaks-using-artificial-intelligence/
The outrage in the comments about this is stupid. It’s clear that this is an impact statement from the family… the “AI” used here was to just generate the image of him reading the impact statement that his sister wrote.
Was written and created by the family… they are victims. they just wrote it in the context of the deceased.
until it expands and eatsbthe planets before it implodes.
Food chain.
It was purchased a while ago by a less than reputable company. But the service was court tested no log. I’ve not had issue… but the risk could still be there that they’ve started logging.
Edit: Can always set an exit point in another country so that its unlikely that logs can be pulled regardless.
Edit2: oh and its scriptable to grab the port assigned from the pia app and feed it to qbittorent :chef’s kiss:
people like to shit on PIA. but they still support port forwarding.
Yet again… You fundamentally have the wrong answer…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot
GitHub Copilot is a code completion and automatic programming tool developed by GitHub and OpenAI
https://github.com/features/copilot
GitHub copilot was literally developed WITH OpenAI the creators of ChatGPT… and you can run o1, o3, o4 directly in there.
By default, Copilot code completion uses the GPT-4o Copilot, a fine-tuned GPT-4o mini based large language model (LLM).
It defaults to 4o mini.
Are there any examples you can point me to for this? I’ve always found esxi the “teeth pulling” one and would like to see some arguments otherwise.