Billionaires: invests heavily in water.
Billionaires: “In the future there’s going to be water wars. You need to invest NOW! Quick before it’s too late. I swear I’m not trying to pump the stock.”
Billionaires: “Water isn’t accruing value fast enough. Let’s invent a product that uses a shit ton of it!”
Billionaires: “No one likes or is using the product. Force them to. Include it in literally all software and every website. Make it so they’re using the product even when they don’t know they’re using it. Include it in every web search. I want that water gone by the end of this quarter!”
being anti-plastic is making me feel like i’m going insane. “you asked for a coffee to go and i grabbed a disposable cup.” studies have proven its making people dumber. “i threw your leftovers in some cling film.” its made from fossil fuels and leaves trash everywhere we look. “ill grab a bag at the register.” it chokes rivers and beaches and then we act surprised. “ill print a cute label and call it recyclable.” its spreading greenwashed nonsense. little arrows on stuff that still ends up in the landfill. “dont worry, it says compostable.” only at some industrial facility youll never see. “i was unboxing a package” theres no way to verify where any of this ends up. burned, buried, or floating in the ocean. “the brand says advanced recycling.” my work has an entire sustainability team and we still stock pallets of plastic water bottles and shrink wrapped everything. plastic cutlery. plastic wrap. bubble mailers. zip ties. everyone treats it as a novelty. every treats it as a mandatory part of life. am i the only one who sees it? am i paranoid? am i going insane? jesus fucking christ. if i have to hear one more “well at least” “but its convenient” “but you can” im about to lose it. i shouldnt have to jump through hoops to avoid the disposable default. have you no principles? no goddamn spine? am i the weird one here?
#ebb rambles #vent #i think #fuck plastics im so goddamn tired
If plastic was released roughly two years ago you’d have a point.
If you’re saying in 50 years we’ll all be soaking in this bullshit called gen-AI and thinking it’s normal, well - maybe, but that’s going to be some bleak-ass shit.
Also you’ve got plastic in your gonads.
Yeah it was a fun little whataboutism. I thought about doing smartphones instead. Writing that way hurts though. I had to double check for consistency.
If you’re saying in 50 years we’ll all be soaking in this bullshit called gen-AI and thinking it’s normal, well - maybe, but that’s going to be some bleak-ass shit.
I’m almost certain gen AI will still be popular in 50 years. This is why I prefer people try to tackle some of the problems they see with AI instead of just hating on AI because of the problems it currently has. Don’t get me wrong, pointing out the problems as you have is important - I just wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that AI is a problem itself.
On the bright side we have Cyberpunk to give us a tutorial on how to survive the AI dystopia. Have you started picking your implants yet?
Why not write this with pen and paper?
It trains your brain even more than typing, it is impossible to be used to train any AI, it uses no electricity compared to the massive amounts a computer uses, and I don’t have to read your dumb takes.
Seriously, I know corporate bullshit are using AI to do dumb things. But it is a fascinating technology that can do a lot of neat things if applied correctly.
Stop claiming like AI shit in your shoes and fucked your grandma. It isn’t going to burst and go away.
But it is a fascinating technology that can do a lot of neat things if applied correctly.
Great so it should disappear entirely from every aspect of technology where it is not applied correctly. As the rest of the world has more or less worked since the dawn of history. And yet somehow it’s in everyone’s face every goddamned day and we Do. Not. Want. It.
Having alpha-level product thrust into each and every process and being told “that’s the way it is” is utter insanity. Not to mention the entire concept is flawed as a business tool. FUCK THIS.
Me and the homies all hate ai. The only thing people around me seem to use ai for is essentially just snapchat filters. Those people couldn’t muster a single fuck about the harms ai has done though.
The only thing people around me seem to use ai for is essentially code completion, test case development and email summaries. I don’t know a single person who uses Snapchat. It’s like the world is diverse and tools have uses.
“I hate tunnel boring machines, none of my buddies has an use for a tunnel boring machine, and they are expensive and consume a ton of energy”
I can see that you’re trying to mirror my comment, I just fail to see the point you’re trying to make. Cool, you know people who have a somewhat legitimate use for the unprofitable, unreliable technology that’s built on rampant theft and consumes obscene amounts of power and water. And?
We already have the GPUs, they use a few hundred watts sporadically, definitely less than gaming. They use no water, they are air cooled and we drink more coffee than water ourselves. Do you just copy paste blindly arguments form the internet or do you ever stop and think from time to time?
And suddenly we’re talking about locally hosted models I guess? You’re just contorting your argument and cherry picking the single part of the deeply problematic technology you could possibly defend. It’s disingenuous and you’re just poorly covering it up with condescension.
Yeah, and electricity can kill you and start fires, that’s why we only use it in controlled equipment. Bleach can kill you too, that’s why I only defend it to clean the house. I also only defend knifes to chop vegetables, not to murder babies. What a dumb argument: “you only defend technology X for its good uses, and not for killing kittens”.
The post isn’t about locally hosted models amigo.
It’s about LLMs.
I don’t think it’s just you. Like it wasn’t just one person thinking computers would make us dumb or the automobile making us lazy. I’m betting that someone somewhere thought that cooking food on the fire would make us weaker.
Technology has that ability to generate opposition from status quo.
And as with any technology, there are good uses, bad uses and frivolous uses.
Remember the awful nonsense web pages of the early 90’s?
I think AI will make the life’s of some of us easier. But I also think it will continue widening the digital divide.
The biggest concern is that, by nature, AI needs massive amounts of power which can only be paid by people with big resources and those people are training it. AI has the trainer’s bias.
However, end consumer AI is the tip of the iceberg. AI will succeed when we don’t even realize it’s there.
Good points, but I think the anti-AI position is not an anti-technology position.
I think the people assuming it is are naïve. It’s an anti-hype position. We’ve seen bullshit waves before, but nothing like this tsunami. When previous bullshit waves broke, there wasn’t so much destruction we couldn’t recover.
I think a healthier perspective would involve more shades of grey. There are real issues with power consumption and job displacement. There are real benefits with better access to information and getting more done with limited resources. But I expect bringing any nuance into the conversation will get me downvoted to hell.
There are real benefits with better access to information and getting more done with limited resources.
If there were, someone would have made that product and it would be profitable.
But they ain’t and it isn’t because those benefits are miniscule. The only cases we know of where that was the actual story turn out to be outsourcing to India and calling it AI.
Idk why profitability is the bar for you. It’s common practice for tech companies to be non-profitable for years as they invest in R&D and capturing market share.
But products like Claude absolutely provide both of the benefits (and detriments) I mentioned
Profitability is the point, right? Moving goods from one place to another at a loss in the expectation that scale and market share will pan out is perfectly acceptable.
Vaporware for $40/mo. Is not. Claude can’t ever be profitable at its price point, and even with the price so low its market share is abysmal. There’s delaying profitability and there’s burning unconscionable piles of cash without any idea of how it can become profitable.
AI’s adoption has been atrocious by any stretch so unless the plan us to continue to fuck up an unbelievable number of models and processes in the hope some future Ed McMahon hands over an enormous oversized novelty check worth billions, their activities are scandalously unprofitable.
Why does profit matter? I don’t personally give a shit about the longevity, margins or market share of any company invested in the technology, but I am generally in favor of research and development of any technology. In most research it’s hard to predict the future pplications.
That’s not to say development is always smart, or safe, or ethical, just that it has to happen in order to see where this goes. Even if there’s an end point it’s helpful to know where it is.
Unfortunately, capitalism requires a sacrifice to the economy in order to pursue anything. That’s what sucks about this. If we weren’t hard wired to justify existence in capital there wouldn’t be so much occlusive hype around it.
Why does profit matter? . . . but I am generally in favor of research and development of any technology. In most research it’s hard to predict the future applications.
Answered your own question there.
If we weren’t hard wired to justify existence in capital there wouldn’t be so much occlusive hype around it.
Can’t argue with that. It is almost entirely a cash grab that is astonishing in its overreach and astounding in its apparent failure.
The reason AI is wrong so often is because it’s not programmed to give you the right answer. It’s programmed to give you the most pervasive one.
LLMs are being fed by Reddit and other forums that are ostensibly about humans giving other humans answers to questions.
But have you been on those forums? It’s a dozen different answers for every question. The reality is that we average humans don’t know shit and we’re just basing our answers on our own experiences. We aren’t experts. We’re not necessarily dumb, but unless we’ve studied, our knowledge is entirely anecdotal, and we all go into forums to help others with a similar problem by sharing our answer to it.
So the LLM takes all of that data and in essence thinks that the most popular, most mentioned, most upvoted answer to any given question must be the de facto correct one. It literally has no other way to judge; it’s not smart enough to cross reference itself or look up sources.
It literally has no other way to judge; it’s not smart enough to cross reference itself or look up sources
I think that is it’s biggest limitation.
Like AI basically crown sourcing information isn’t really the worst thing, crowd sourced knowledge tends to be fairly decent. People treating it as if it’s an authoritative source like they looked it up in the encyclopedia or asked an expert is a big problem though.
Ideally it would be more selective about the ‘crowds’ it gathers data from. Like science questions should be sourced from scientists. Preferably experts in the field that the question is about.
Like Wikipedia (at least for now) is ‘crowd- sourced’, but individual pages are usually maintained by people who know a lot about the subject. That’s why it’s more accurate than a ‘normal’ encyclopedia. Though of course it’s not fool proof or tamper proof by any definition.
If we taught AI how to be ‘Media Literate’ and gave it the ability to double check it’s data with reliable sources- it would be a lot more useful.
most upvoted answer
This is the other problem. You basically have 4 types of redditors.
-
People who use the karma system correctly, that is to say they upvote things that contribute to the conversation. Even if you think it is ‘wrong’ or you disagree with it, if it’s something that adds to the discussion, you are supposed to upvote it.
-
People who treat it as “I agree/ I disagree” buttons.
-
People who treat it as "I like this/ I hate this buttons.
-
Id say the majority of the people probably do some combination of the above.
So more than half the time people aren’t upvoting things because they think they are correct. If LLM models are treating ‘karma’ as a “This is correct” metric- that’s a big problem.
The other bad problem is people who really should know better- tech bros and CEO’s going all in on AI when it’s WAY to early to do that. As you point out, it’s not even really intelligent yet- it just parrots ‘common’ knowledge.
AI should never be used to create anything in Wikipedia. But theoretically, an open source LLM trained solely on wikipedia would actually be kind useful to ask quick questions to.
-
It literally has no other way to judge
It literally does NOT judge. It cannot reason. It does not know what “words” are. It is an enormous rainbow table of sentence probability that does nothing useful except fool people and provide cover for capitalists to extract more profit.
But apparently, according to some on here, “that’s the way it is, get used to it.” FUCK no.
Markov text generator. Thats all it is. Just made with billions in stolen wages.
“Information wants to be free…” No! Not like that!! 😫
Everytime someone talks up AI, I point out that you need to be a subject matter expert in the topic to trust it because it frequently produces really, really convincing summaries that are complete and utter bullshit.
And people agree with me implicitly and tell me they’ve seen the same. But then don’t hesitate to turn to AI on subjects they aren’t experts in for “quick answers”. These are not stupid people either. I just don’t understand.
Hence the feeling of creeping insanity. Yeah.
Uses for this current wave of AI: converting machine language to human language. Converting human language to machine language. Sentiment analysis. Summarizing text.
People have way over invested in one of the least functional parts of what it can do because it’s the part that looks the most “magic” if you don’t know what it’s doing.
The most helpful and least used way of using them is to identify what information the user is looking for and then to point them to resources they can use to find out for themselves, maybe with a description of which resource might be best depending on what part of the question they’re answering.
It’s easy to be wrong when you’re answering a question, and a lot harder when you hand someone a book and say you think the answer is in chapter four.Because the alternative for me is googling the question with “reddit” added at the end half of the time. I still do that alot. For more complicated or serious problems/questions, I’ve set it to only use search function and navigate scientific sites like ncbi and pubmed while utilizing deep think. It then gives me the sources, I randomly tend to cross-check the relevant information, but so far I personally haven’t noticed any errors. You gotta realize how much time this saves.
When it comes to data privacy, I honestly don’t see the potential dangers in the data I submit to OpenAI, but this is of course different to everyone else. I don’t submit any personal info or talk about my life. It’s a tool.
If it saves time but you still have to double check its answers, does it really save time? At least many reddit comments call out their own uncertainty or link to better resources, I can’t trust a single thing AI outputs so I just ignore it as much as possible.
Simply by the questions you ask, the way you ask them, they are able to infer a lot of information. Just because you’re not giving them the raw data about you doesn’t mean they are not able to get at least some of it. They’ve gotten pretty good at that.
Meanwhile, we have people making the web worse by not linking to source & giving us images of text instead of proper, accessible, searchable, failure tolerant text.
So hating the AI hypenukes is ‘old man yelling at cloud’ but only being allowed to grab images of text is “people” making the web worse? Point made with an image of minimal text? from lemmynsfw?
Well goddamn.
Point made with an image of minimal text? from lemmynsfw?
Did you notice the alt text? Here’s the markdown
When that image breaks, the alt text & a broken image icon renders in its place, so readers will still understand the message. People using accessibility technology (like screenreaders) can now understand the image. Search engines can find the image by the alt text.
I think griping over inaccessible text & lack of link to real text is more compelling, because it’s a direct choice of the author: it directly impacts the user, the complaint goes directly to the author impacting the user, the author has direct control over it & can choose to fix it at any time. There’s a good chance of an immediate remedy.
Griping over AI, however, adds little that isn’t posted frequently around here & is a bit like yelling at clouds: we aren’t about to stop that technology by yelling about it on here. I’m sure it feels good, though. It could feel better with a link & proper text.
Did you notice the alt text?
Yeah, and I noticed it didn’t describe the image at all - unless one had already seen the image and knew what it was. So for visually impaired users (i.e. one of the main groups who would benefit from alt text) it is insufficient at best.
Griping over AI, however, isn’t adding anything that isn’t posted frequently around here
Specific to the OP the issue is those of us who know gen-AI is an enormous piece of shit with only downsides for things we care about like culture and learning, we might feel like we’re going a little crazy in a culture that only seems to be able to share love for it in public places like work. Even public criticism of it has been limited to economic and ecological harms. I haven’t seen that particular angle before very much, and as someone else posted here I felt recognized by it.
Yeah, and I noticed it didn’t describe the image at all
How would you state it over the phone? Alt text is a succinct alternative that conveys (accurate/equivalent) meaning in context, much like reading a comment with an image to someone over the phone. If you would have said that “Simpsons meme of an old man yelling at a cloud”, then that would also suffice. It doesn’t need to go into elaborate detail.
In those discussions, people often talk about having enough, losing their minds, it making people dumber, too. I get it helps to feel recognized, so would it feel better to broaden the reach of that message for more recognition?
How would you state it over the phone?
“A screenshot of The Simpsons showing a hand holding a newspaper article featuring a picture of Grandpa Simpson shaking his fist at the sky and scowling, with the headline ‘Old Man Yells At Clouds’”
It doesn’t need to go into elaborate detail.
It depends on how much you care that someone who needs or wants the alt text needs to know.
so would it feel better to broaden the reach of that message for more recognition?
absolutely. And, ironically, one of the possible use cases of AI where it might-sort-of-kinda-work-okay-to-help-although-it-needs-work-because-it’s-still-kind-of-sucky.
It depends on how much you care that someone who needs or wants the alt text needs to know.
The accessibility advocates at WebAIM in the previous link don’t seem to think a verbal depiction (which an algorithm could do) is adequate. They emphasize what an algorithm does poorly: convey meaning in context.
Their 1st example indicates less is better: they don’t dive into incidental details of the astronaut’s dress, props, hand placement, but merely give her title & name.
They recommend
not include phrases like “image of …” or “graphic of …”, etc
and calling it a screenshot is non-essential to context. The hand holding a newspaper isn’t meaningful in context, either. The headline already states the content of the picture, redundancy is discouraged, and unless context refers the picture (it doesn’t), it’s also non-essential to context.
The best alternative text will depend on the context and intended content of the image.
Unless gen-AI mindreads authors, I expect it will have greater difficulty delivering meaning in context than verbal depictions.
Geez for someone who ostensibly wants people to use alt text you’re super picky about it.
Good luck?
Normally I would agree, but Twitter and Discord are the sole exceptions. The original sources can get hit by meteors for all I care. No… I hope their datacenters do get hit, with no one in them of course.
It is silly that people think not posting text can somehow stop LLM crawlers.
It is silly that people think not posting text can somehow stop LLM crawlers.
Agreed.
Not linking to source though, because you hate the hosting platform is petty vindictiveness that does more to hurt the uninvolved on accessibility & usability than do much against the platform. To prevent traffic to platforms, linking to alternatives like proxies for those services & web archival snapshots is common practice around here.
Meanwhile, we have people making the web worse by not linking to source & giving us images of text instead of proper, accessible, searchable, failure tolerant text.
- OpenAI Text Crawler
You don’t think the disabled use technology? Or that search engine optimization existed before LLMs? Or that text sticks around when images break?
Lack of accessibility wouldn’t stop LLMs: it could probably process images into text the hard way & waste more energy in the process. That’d be great, right?
-
A hyphen isn’t a quotation dash.
-
Are we playing the AI game? Let’s pretend we’re AI. Here’s some fun punctuation:
‒−–—―…:Beep bip boop.
Yeah thats definitely fair. Accessibility is important. It is unfortunate though that AI companies abuse accessibility and organization tags to train their LLMs.
See how Stable Diffusion porn uses danbooru tags, and situations like this:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NEDFUjqA1s8
Decentralized media based communities have the rare ability to be able to hide their data from scraping.
I didn’t have the patience to sit through 19 minutes of video, so I tried to read through the transcript. Then I saw the stuttering & weird, verbose fuckery going on there. Copilot, however, summarized the video, which revealed it was about deliberate obfuscation of subtitle files to attempt to thwart scrapers.
This seems hostile to the user, and doesn’t seem to work as intended, so I’m not sure what to think of it. I know people who have trouble sequencing information and rely on transcripts. Good accessibility benefits nondisabled users, too (an additional incentive for it).
Not trying to be overly critical. I’ll have to look into danbooru tags: unfamiliar with those. Thanks.
Patience and nuance is a rare virtue in 2025
I’m not sure this is so much virtues becoming rarer as inconvenient demands emerging: a video that could have been an article is a problem of the modern age.
Articles can be read quickly & processed structurally by jumping around sections. Videos, however, can be agonizing, because they resist that sort of processing. Transcripts can alleviate the problem somewhat, but obfuscating them undoes that. And we’ve got things to do.
-
This is a great representation of why not to argue with someone who debates like this.
Arguments like these are like Hydras. Start tackling any one statement that may be taken out of context, or have more nuance, or is a complete misrepresentation, and two more pop up.
It sucks because true, good points get lost in the tangle.
For instance, there are soft science, social interaction areas where AI is doing wonders.
Specifically, in the field of law, now that lawyers have learned not to rely on AI for citations, they are instead offloading hundreds of thousands or millions of pages of documents that they were never actually going to read, and getting salient results from allowing an AI to scan through them to pull out interesting talking points.
Pulling out these interesting talking points and fact checking them and, you know, A/B testing the ways to interact and bring them in front of the jury with an AI has made it so that many law firms are getting thousands or millions of dollars more on a lawsuit than they anticipated.
And you may be against American law for all of its frivolous plaintiffs’ lawsuits or something, but each of these outcomes are decided by human beings, and there are real damages that are lifelong that are being addressed by these lawsuits, or at least in some way compensated.
The more money these plaintiffs get for the injuries that they have to live with for the rest of their lives, the better for them, and AI made the difference.
Not that lawyers are fundamentally incapable or uncaring, but for every one, I don’t know who the fuck is a super lawyer nowadays, but you know, for every, you know, madman lawyer on the planet, there’s 999 that are working hard and just do not have the raw plot armor Deus Ex Machina dropping everything directly into their lap to solve all of their problems that they would need to operate at that level.
And yes, if you want to be particular, a human being should have done the work. A human being can do the work. A human being is actually being paid to do the work. But when you can offload grunt work to a computer and get usable results from it that improves a human’s life, that’s the whole fucking reason why we invented computers in the first place.
I’d like to hear more about this because I’m fairly tech savvy and interested in legal nonsense (not American) and haven’t heard of it. Obviously, I’ll look it up but if you have a particularly good source I’d be grateful.
I have lawyer friends. I’ve seen snippets of their work lives. It continues to baffle me how much relies on people who don’t have the waking hours or physical capabilities to consume and collate that much information somehow understanding it well enough to present a true, comprehensive argument on a deadline.
I do tech support for a few different law firms in my area, and AI companies that offer document ingest and processing are crawling out of every crack.
Some of them are pretty good and they take into account the hallucination issues and offer direct links to the quotes that they’re pulling and I mean it’s an area where things are developing and soon it should be easier for a lawyer to put on more cases or to charge less per case because being a lawyer becomes so much easier.
My boss had GPT make this informational poster thing for work. Its supposed to explain stuff to customers and is rampant with spelling errors and garbled text. I pointed it out to the boss and she said it was good enough for people to read. My eye twitches every time I see it.
Spelling errors? That’s… unusual. Part of what makes ChatGPT so specious is that its output is usually immaculate in terms of language correctness, which superficially conceals the fact that it’s completely bullshitting on the actual content.
deleted by creator
FWIW, she asked it to make a complete info-graphic style poster with images and stuff so GPT created an image with text, not a document. Still asinine.
I think that’s exactly what the author was referring to.
good enough for people to read
wow, what a standard, super professional look for your customers!
deleted by creator
I haven’t used it willingly ever. Especially after the one time copilot told me an acre is 4.5 football fields in area. I didn’t ask it, the response was just presented at the top of my results. I’m a fucking farmer for God sake. I know that’s very very wrong without thinking. I just wanted the square footage and was too lazy to use my calculator. Never again.
That being said, I do on occasion solicit my friend who has a subscription, just to request and have him send me a very specific image request and have him text it to me, so I can repost it.
Anything for the memes. Literally anything.
TIL one football is roughly the size of an acre. (Roughly.)
I haven’t really played football in years so they must have changed the rules. Because that is one big ball.
At least knowingly. It seems some customer service stuff feeds it direct to AI before any human gets involved.
I once asked a “customer service rep” to write a python script. It did.
I’m mostly annoyed that I have to keep explaining to people that 95% of what they hear about AI is marketing. In the years since we bet the whole US economy on AI and were told it’s absolutely the future of all things, it’s yet to produce a really great work of fiction (as far as we know), a groundbreaking piece of software of it’s own production or design, or a blockbuster product that I’m aware of.
We’re betting our whole future on a concept of a product that has yet to reliably profit any of its users or the public as a whole.
I’ve made several good faith efforts at getting it to produce something valuable or helpful to me. I’ve done the legwork on making sure I know how to ask it for what I want, and how I can better communicate with it.
But AI “art” requires an actual artist to clean it up. AI fiction requires a writer to steer it or fix it. AI non-fiction requires a fact cheker. AI code requires a coder. At what point does the public catch on that the emperor has no clothes?
What if the point of AI is to have it create a personal model for each of us, using the vast amounts of our data they have access to, in order to manipulate us into buying and doing whatever the people who own it want but they can’t just come out and say that?
It’s our own version of The Matrix
When you order your Matrix from Wish…
I’m sure that’s at least part of the idea but I’m yet to see any evidence that it won’t also be dog shit at that. It doesn’t have the context window or foresight to conceive of a decent plot twist in a piece of fiction despite having access to every piece of fiction ever written. I’m not buying that it would be able to build a psychological model and contextualize 40 plus years of lived experience in a way that could get me to buy a $20 Dubai chocolate bar or drive a Chevy.
Im pretty sure I said "the point of it and not that it was 100% ready to go now.
Also, no one thinks advertising works on them. So, I’m sure you don’t believe it 👍
it’s yet to produce a really great work of fiction (as far as we know), a groundbreaking piece of software of it’s own production or design, or a blockbuster product
Or a profit. Or hell even one of those things that didn’t suck! It’s critically flawed and has been defying gravity on the coke-fueled dreams of silicon VC this whole time.
And still. One of next year’s fiscal goals is “AI”. That’s all. Just “AI”.
It’s a goal. Somehow. It’s utter insanity.
The goal is “[Replace you money-needing meatsacks with] AI” but the suits don’t want to say it that clearly.
Anyone in engineering knows the 90% of your goal is the easy bit. You’ll then spend 90% of your time on the remainder. Same for AI and getting past the uncanny valley with art.
Anyone else feel like they’ve lost loved ones to AI or they’re in the process of losing someone to AI?
I know the stories about AI induced psychosis, but I don’t mean to that extent.
Like just watching how much somebody close to you has changed now that they depend on AI for so much? Like they lose a little piece of what makes them human, and it kinda becomes difficult to even keep interacting with them.
Example would be trying to have a conversation with somebody who expects you to spoon-feed them only the pieces of information they want to hear.
Like they’ve lost the ability to take in new information if it conflicts with something they already believe to be true.
I see this sentiment a lot. No way “youre the only one.”
I feel like im the only one. No one in my life uses it. My work is not eligible to have it implemented in anyway. This whole ai movement seems to be happening around me, and i have nothing more than new articles and memes that are telling me its happening. It serious doesnt impact me at all, and i wonder how others lives are crumbling
