Rhaedas

joined 8 months ago
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 8 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

That'll get them. No one under 15 has any idea what a VPN is.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 100 points 3 weeks ago (41 children)

"Are you 15 or more years old? Y/N"

There, that fixed the problem.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 17 points 3 weeks ago

Everything is through OneDrive. Even stuff that doesn't need to be. Desktop shortcuts...really?

Also - I hate Teams, refuse to use it. The one time I did use it for some irrelevant confirmation message, it stuck and now not only does it load every time I log on (to get closed immediately), it also has the history of that one message. That I've tried to delete, and it keeps coming back.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe it's not the right place for it, but the mentions of AI safety and safety in general don't pertain to the actual definition of AI safety as used in AI research. No mention of alignment parameters that are needed to be held to. This reads as a "we need to be careful who gets access to this" vs. any warning to AI companies on their direction and haste.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 59 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Make your own dystopia, Elon. Stop copying people.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even a hypothetically true artificial general intelligence would still not be a moral agent

That's a deep rabbit hole that can't be stated as a known fact. It's absolutely true right now with LLMs, but at some point the line could be crossed. If and when, how, and by what definition has been a long debate nowhere near resolved.

It's highly possible that AGI/ASI could come about and be both super intelligent and self conscious and still have no sense of morality. But how can we at human levels even comprehend what's possible? There's the real danger, we have no idea what we could be heading towards.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago

I wanted to jump into using Peertube, but unfortunately Youtube grew enormous because it was the only thing at the time. Pulling people from it to other platforms with less viewers and usually no compensation is tough. (although YT compensation as of late is a joke as well)

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Trolley problems usually have some conflict that makes the decision hard.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

Thorium was being tested for viability alongside uranium, and got scrapped not because it wasn't a feasible design, but because it couldn't produce weapon grade material as a byproduct. Some countries are finally exploring thorium again, hopefully with some success.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

Look up NASA's versions of RTGs. Just because Russia did everything wrong doesn't make a technology bad, just mishandled.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Of course the market selected renewables as the favored child. "Renewable" and "green" are marketing terms, as is "net zero" and "recycling". I'm not here with any agenda, I just brought up some points about environmental damage that solar can do on both sides of its existence. I guess I ruffled some feathers.

Did you miss my points about having some of both? Or did you just read the first few lines and rage post? I figured this was a forum where we could discuss the pros and cons of all sides, not just hate on anyone with a differing view.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I'm not comparing them, I'm saying that it's inaccurate to ignore the effects that solar has.

The chemicals in producing PV panels are toxic. Part of why production got shifted to countries like China is because without regulation on the waste disposal they are so much cheaper to make there. Sucks for the residents, but that's capitalism.

Energy is used to make PV. True of everything, but when solar is advertised it leans heavy on the free energy that the device generates, not how much it took to make it. But at least that energy can come from solar too...except it comes from fossil fuels.

The heavy metals that make up part of the other 10% are the later waste problem. I don't know if you can consider those metals inert since they are considered hazardous waste, but they can't be discounted either. A recycling program to recover everything possible and then controlling the hazardous leftovers would make this less of a point, but we're not doing that fully yet, so there are things going in the landfills now that could leach into the environment.

All of this can be improved of course. I'm just introducing the fact that solar, like anything we do to keep our society at its level, has drawbacks too.

Nuclear has its problems, as I mentioned. I didn't pretend that solar is bad and nuclear is all flowers. But the issues it faces are much different and have their own solutions, and nuclear energy density and flexibility is far better than solar ever could be.

I never understand why people pick their sides and then try to make other choices seem like the antithesis to help their cause. Why not find the best solutions for all of the non-fossil fuel sources, and have them all where they make the most sense? Diversity and redundancy is far better than a monopoly won by falsehoods.

view more: ‹ prev next ›