Ottomateeverything

joined 1 year ago
[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 46 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I think you're missing the point. The pic is of Disney's star wars space ship themed hotel. The idea isn't to make people think they're in space, it's to give the experience of being on a space ship.

Not to say it's a good idea, I think the spaceship hotel thing is kinda weird. It sort of makes sense at Disney, but you're only in it for part of the day, and it still failed. The idea of staying in there outside of Disney would be... Odd... But maybe he's just saying Disney should bring a ship into the park? Lol?

But yeah, they're not trying to hoodwink anyone into thinking they're in space.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 97 points 8 months ago (18 children)

I bet if such a law existed in less than a month all those AI developers would very quickly abandon the "oh no you see it's impossible to completely avoid hallucinations for you see the math is just too complex tee hee" and would actually fix this.

Nah, this problem is actually too hard to solve with LLMs. They don't have any structure or understanding of what they're saying so there's no way to write better guardrails.... Unless you build some other system that tries to make sense of what the LLM says, but that approaches the difficulty of just building an intelligent agent in the first place.

So no, if this law came into effect, people would just stop using AI. It's too cavalier. And imo, they probably should stop for cases like this unless it has direct human oversight of everything coming out of it. Which also, probably just wouldn't happen.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, because when you run systems like that, you use the AI, and you have the people as a fallback for when the AI fails.

It was primarily watched by people in India because the AI was failing the vast majority of the time.

So yeah, the state of the art AI is... Failing at its job 70% of the time. Instead of the hoped goal of 5%.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's more "device" pairing than "parts" pairing. The thermostat to HVAC communication is a standard. Sure, if someone started forcing that, that'd be bad. But that's more akin to Apple's "iOS only works with MacBooks" type shit with Airdrop and such than it is to their "you can't replace the camera in your phone unless it's from us". They're both problems, but the one you're describing is both not happening and a different issue. I'm not saying it won't happen but it's a different topic.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What... The.. Fuck?

If your thermostat could cause a fire or gas leak, your HVAC system is flawed. This is entirely a fabricated concern. If anything, I'd chalk it up as reasons why maybe right to repair the HVAC isn't a great idea. A properly setup HVAC wont let anything tell it to do that.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Firstly, I said this one was iffy to me.

Second, the subtopic was HVAC and thermostats are like, the electronics that control the HVAC which I wouldn't even really necessarily bucket into HVAC. It's like HVAC adjacent.

Third, this whole topic is about right to repair, not right to replace. So the on topic argument is "you want to be able to repair the same thermostat with off brand parts", to which I say, yes? Probably? I don't see how that's a problem.

And fourth, who the fuck would buy an Amazon thermostat, lmao.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah that's totally valid. Agreed.

But I also wouldn't really trust third party parts for the appliance itself. I think once you do, that immediately becomes a possible problem. If it was in my house, I'd only buy from the manufacturer for something like that.

But on the other hand, Idk that it's necessarily wrong to legislate forcing these companies to allow it. I generally believe consumers should have the option on their own, but some things are too dangerous. I'd pretty much be against medical devices but HVAC is a little more uncertain to me.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I just meant for explaining the function of what the thing does.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (12 children)

I mean, I don't want the thing supplying the air I'm breathing to accidentally not burn all the gas and lead to carbon monoxide poisoning etc.... Things like the ductwork and shit, for sure, but not like, a burner.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's basically an analog version of an HDMI cable. Except no audio, only video.

It's like the yellow RCA cable, but for computer monitors instead of TVs

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 71 points 8 months ago (58 children)

I could see an argument about medical devices, HVAC, and vehicles... But I don't think I'd agree with them. Except maybe medical.

Consoles and toothbrushes though? What the fuck?

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

This seems like a detour around right to repair.

That's because it is. That's all Apple does. Every time they get brought to court around shit, like the app store stuff in EU that just happened, they make it intentionally as difficult as could possibly be while still technically following the request. It's malicious compliance at every step of the way even when they get caught. They're so anti-consumer it's not even funny.

view more: next ›