🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞

Ironic. Attempts to be clever. Oh well.

:sigh: I hate when people just tell outright lies for clicks.

Did bad people get money from Meta? Yes.

Did Meta actively pay bad people to post bad content? NO. This is like saying that Youtube had hired people to post AI videos targeting children because they pay people part of the advertising they sell on videos. It is not the same thing at all.

If a Walmart employee beats you up while they’re on the clock, these twits would post “WALMART HIRED AND PAID PEOPLE TO BEAT INNOCENT PEOPLE UP”.

Am I saying Meta is great? No1 Fuck you no! But is this headline bullshit? YES IT IS.

I find it insulting that you think it is the best solution

And I find you taking insult to be tiring.

And where did I say it was the best solution? Do not put words in my mouth

Go off an be unhappy in your little world of unhappiness.

Do you normally participate in how companies set their pricing? No.

Do companies update their pricing? All the time.

All you don’t like is random people paying different prices. It’s not unethical, it is normal business practice, whether you are ignorant of it or not.

Well, regardless, it’s a part of our capitalistic system, and clearly people here on Lemmy are unaware of how business works.

Companies change prices all the time. Is that unethical? All that happens in an A/B test is that different people get different prices, and the company sees how many people buy at which price. There is no one single ethical price for anything. Thanks to capitalism, you charge what the market can bear. And it’s not like we’re talking something like a million dollars vs a dollar. The amounts are both pretty clearly within a reasonable amount.

Not defending Rockstar. Try again.

I’ll keep it simple and based on the article in question:

Right now, people who need help are waiting longer to talk to an operator becauase operators field lots of calls about large incidents (or well-witnessed incidents).

That’s causing harm RIGHT NOW.

The theory is that if you offer callers a way to NOT TAKE UP OPERATOR TIME for incidents that are known, then the people who need help talk to an operator faster and get help faster.

That is what the article presents as what they’re doing.

Everything you are saying is pure speculation.

You may well be right. We’ll see.

Jesus christ, Lemmy, you’re just on fire today. I’m starting to get bummed out.

So all the people who don’t care about GTA:VI - why are you in this thread? Be glad that you don’t care about something. Does every post on the site need to cater to your whims?

Ugh.

I’m looking forward to the eventual PC release - if I’m still alive (I’m on dialysis, so that’s a little up in the air). I’m looking forward to the preview or whatever they release here. Since it’ll be on youtube a few hours after the Netflix release - ermagerd guess I’ll wait a few hours. Be a couple of years before I get it on PC anyway.

So much drama that means nothing. Yeesh.

Coke originally sold for a nickle.

In 1992, when Arizona tea came out, that 99¢ then is worth at least $2.32 today. So bear that in mind, yeah?

Arizona tea came out in 1992 and sold for 99¢ per can. Today that would be $2.32, which means these cans cost around ⅔ as much as they did when they came out.

Language is generally workable if it communicates the intended message. In that sense, I acknowledge that it is generally understood what something means, but not always.

However, it is semantic gibberish, and fuck anyone who supports that gibberish.

But yes, it’s fine enough in the same way that when someone says “could of” we know they meant “could’ve” or “could have”. It doesn’t make it correct. And it is still grating.

Two asshats disagreed with my comment above enough to downvote. This is also grating because it means they actively support WRONG. And it is WRONG.

It’s fine, but it is irritating when people are willfully ignorant.

If I talk to robots, I get hallucinations. And mostly true things, but it’s hard to trust when they get it wrong a lot of the time. heh.

But yeah, it’s also human nature. :)

No, I meant I read the article, sorry if that wasn’t clear.

LOL. English ambiguity strikes again. Sorry for the misfire, totally my fault. Thanks for the kind reply and patience with me <3

I do disagree that there’s no way to make it work pretty safe. Instead of defaulting to holding someone in the AI loop until they talk their way out of it, you can simply set it up to stay in the loop only if it’s sure it needs to continue, i.e. anything other than something it gets like “Oh, yes, that’s what I was calling about”, it should dump them to a human.

And we don’t know if they’ve set it up something like that or not. I humbly disagree that we know for sure they have not, no matter how other systems are configured.

And I also disagree that it will necessarily turn out poorly. It literally depends on how they do it. But that said, it is analgous to taking humans out of the driver’s seat in the car. At some point, it will be statistically ten times safer for automated driving to drive you than letting people drive. And when we get to that point, people will be up in arms that automated driving is killing people - when it is literally only a tenth of the previous rate of death. But we humans don’t like giving up that sort of control.

AI is new technology. I’m not totally behind them doing this, but I see the goal. And if they configure it correctly to fail-to-human rather than fail-to-AI-loop, I can see how this can save lives, not lose them. Of course if you’re right and they screw it up it could be worse. I guess we’ll see with time what they do and how it works.

But I firmly believe that trying to fight against all the tech is the wrong move. It’s like trying to fight to keep woodchoppers employed. The tech is there and much of what it is doing is inevitable. What we should be focused on is solving wealth inequality, solving our oligarch problem, solving the lack of social safety nets, living wages, our government working for all of us, not just bilionaires.

So you and I probably aren’t going to see eye to eye on this, but I can respect you better now that I know what you were saying better. :) Sorry to have flubbed that!

I think it’s an internet thing, not a Lemmy thing, to be honest.

I’m a voracious reader. I’m on Lemmy and basically not on reddit anymore because I want to have good discussions. And sometimes the discussions are pretty decent, but things like this put me off a bit.

It’s still a pretty decent platform overall. Although that might say more about the state of the internet at large than it does say good things about Lemmy. heh. But I’m still here. :)

I have to agree with you one hundred, /u/percent

:)

Yet again Lemmy shows that much of the userbase is young and has little general knowledge. A/B testing is quite standard, and there is nothing shady about testing different prices to see what consumers will purchase more.

A couple of times I’ve been walking in a mall (dating this anecdote back a couple of decades or so. heh) and got asked to participate in product testing where I was shown - in the case I remember better - two cans of soda with different designs. Strawberry soda - one pink can, one red can - which one I was more likely to purchase.

A/B testing is quite common as companies figure out how to sell you more. Assuming it’s randomized, it’s completely ethical.

I agree except you can’t have something be “several times shorter”. Yes, I know what you mean, but “several times” can only be longer. It’s like saying “500% less”. You can’t do that. The best case scenario is that means “20% of the original” but arguably “500% less” would mean you take five times the original amount and subtract it from the original, leaving you with negative 4 times the amount, not twenty percent.

Anyway. This is just a light-hearted pedantic pseudo-rant, although I also do stand by the truth of what I’m saying. But I’m not intending corrections, just being silly about a pet peeve of mine. heh

hmm… that article might be better off being -4 times its original length, come to that. heh

As I replied to a similar comment, in fairness - my panties came off as well. hehe (but for a valid reason, dammit! :slams fist on desk:)

Read the article.

TOP EDIT: They were saying they read the article, not that I should read it. d’oh. Sooo, leaving my original below, but oops on misunderstanding! Sorry!

What do you fucking think I did?

If you have something to say, please say it.

I fucking well did.

All I see is someone bitching about not having a discussion.

Try reading all of my fucking comment then.

What about

Depends on how they implement it. I would assume they’re bound to be ahead on you on this one because some callers also can’t say anything on the line because of danger, so they are aware of this issue. Since we don’t have concrete details, we’ll have to speculate on how they handle such things.

I won’t bother to speculate further with you because I know you won’t read it anyway.