Yes, but they were pointing out that this change doesn’t affect phones, meaning the other commenter didn’t read the article.

That’s a nice pipedream, but why would airlines move to this system? They seem perfectly happy with the current system where you have to pay to change anything.

And the game thing doesn’t make sense. If the game shuts down, where are you going to use your NFT? There’s a few crappy crypto games that have tried making it so items are transferable, but for larger games it sounds like a nightmare to implement.

NFTs are like crypto, a solution in search of a problem. I’ll be honest, I’m anti-crypto and NFTs, but if a valid usecase presented itself I’d be happy to be wrong. I just haven’t seen it yet.

I agree with you, but I think both of us about to be downvoted by these cheapskates lol

People say negative things about that? That’s crazy, people are judgmental about stupid shit.

Lol I would bet the majority of that crap is from just normal people.

The article isn’t about what you think.

I think messaging is more likely to see progress made on this front. I don’t see regulations forcing Spotify to allow for their personalization mechanisms to be transferable and that doesn’t really make sense why they should have to, while messaging I can see happen even if only due to popular demand.

He failed to act on the AIDS epidemic until it was too late.

There is a middle ground. The FDA shouldn’t have the power to ban a product from the market. They should be able to publish their recommendations, however, and people who trust them can choose to follow those recommendations. Others should be free to publish their own recommendations, and some people will choose to follow those instead.

That’s putting too much responsibility on the average person, who doesn’t have the time to become educated enough in biology and pharmacology to understand what every potentially harmful product may do to them. What if they never even hear the FDA recommendation?

Also, though you’d like to think this would only harm the individual in question who purchases a harmful product, there are many ways innocent third parties could be harmed through this. Teratogens are just one example.

This kind of laissez-faire attitude just doesn’t work in the real world. There’s a reason we ban overtly harmful substances.

As a CSA survivor, who had images taken of me while I was abused… Fuck you.

People wanting to possess it is exactly what encourages people to produce the material. If you let people possess it with no consequences you will let the demand shoot up and basic economics should tell you what happens next with the supply part.

That is disgusting. Seriously. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

I don’t know about launching in new countries, but a lot of the new subscribers were added in countries where Netflix is cheaper so while they did add a lot of subscribers the revenue increase wasn’t large.

Yes, but you might be more likely to be targeted by thieves who don’t know the difference.

Car thefts are up here anyway, but a lot of it is break and enters where they just get into your house to grab the keys.

There is a diagnostic USB port in the steering column of the car, they are plugging a cable into that then the car just starts without the key.

Immobilizers are required here in Australia so it’s not that, I think it just inspired a bunch of kids to go steal cars in other ways.

I didn’t say anything about the sources being incongruent? That’s a completely separate issue. We were talking about plagiarism.

I don’t understand the morality comment either, I didn’t ascribe any morality to AI, I was talking about whether using them fits the definition of plagiarism or not.

If you are expected to write it yourself, and you use an LLM to generate it, then that’s cheating in my opinion. Yes, of course we shoukd learn to use AI, but if you are told to do something and you get a person or LLM to do it for you, then you didn’t complete the task as you were told. And at university that can have consequences.

Ah yeh, fair enough. I didn’t do any controls and am. Now having to learn a bit for my job, but I like learning at work. It’s more fun than university.

People who understand the technology did not assume that, but yes the general public has a lot of misconceptions about it.

I don’t know about AI, but there are already computer programs that try many different combinations of, for example, chemical structures with known pharmacological properties and then output new drugs that could possibly be used to treat something. Of course you have to verify with research and studies.

I’m sure there will be AI’s or machine learning programs, if not already, that can do this as well and perhaps improve upon the process. But they would need to be specifically trained for that purpose. ChatGPT is a LLM, it’s made to generate language that fits a given prompt, I would not expect it to be great at creating cancer treatments and I’m not sure why we needed a study to learn that. OpenAI tells you already that the results can be inaccurate or outright wrong.

I can understand the plagiarism argument, though you have to extend the definition of it. If I am expected to write an essay, but I use ChatGPT instead, then I am fraudulently presenting the work as my own. Plagiarism might not be the right word, or maybe it’s a case where language is going to evolve so that plagiarism includes passing off AI generated work as your own. Either way it’s cheating unless I was specifically allowed to use AI.

Damn, I’m an EE and my university wasn’t too bad for having a good mix of theory vs practical. But I’m aware a lot of EE courses don’t do that.

BTW, are you Australian too?

Yeh I don’t care either, I just find it funny that most Lemmy users hold themselves out as some how ‘better’ than reddit, yet they engage in exactly the same dumb behaviors that make reddit a terrible place.