and yet, you cannot refute my statement. Get your genocide tech today! It can: -destroy the environment -enrich the already super rich -enable and industrialize genocide -fucks over the poor by firing tons of workers -entrenches marginalisation by propagating fascist world views and pushing for exclusionary thinking

Just because you didn’t think it though and are unable to think it through doesn’t mean my thinking is far-fetched - just that you lack the info, time, or energy to arrive at the same conclusion.

I think any use of “AI” is itself pretty horrendous and should be ostracised and never supported. It’s fascist technology.

there is no task that is meaningful time saved by a kind of context-dependant lorem ipsum. The task is then not done, but simply rejected on its face.

Uh, yes. AI cannot and does not have productive output as its goal, technologically speaking. Therefore, any “convenience” is imagined and projected upon an algorithm of statistically most likely text. It’s just a statistician strapped in front of the 1 Million Monkeys thought experiment.

It’s quintessentially useless, unless your ultimate goal is text resembling language en masse. But usually, Loren Ipsum is much more energy efficient.

“convenience”? You mean CEOs being able to lay off workers with some magical technology that does nothing? Yeah, that’s surely convenient for the 0.1% of people in the world that doesn’t affect. Love that “convenience” for them.

Did it cup your balls during the last BJ or something? Fucking hell, what is it with randos on the web scaping for AI at every instance…

Yes I, uh… rolls dice saw you once in… rolls dice College, and I remember… rolls dice playing Uno… rolls dice under a Sycamore Tree.

…OP, it’s a weird question. Why ask this in some sub-lemmy of all places? Any reason at all?

using von der leyen as the standin for europe is a kick in the teeth. Two disgusting human being facing off.

“quickly”, yes. “Accurately” is a huge misdescription.

The real reason is right after in your quote: It’s funded by bezos. He wants to have that grant money for himself to fund his datacenters, and have another item on a list of funding reasons by investors.

Wait, let’s take a step back. There is no need to regulate immigration. If anything, I think immigration should be made a non-issue, and citizenship extended to anyone who’s within a country for more than a few months, refugees (economic, political, humanitarian) should receive special protective status, fortress Europa should be disbanded, and diplomatic ties to turkey should be rescinded (as it commits crimes against humanity to oppress and categorically suppress migration).

So, yeah, the alternative is pretty easy to do, it just means the EU has to actually rescind its fascist history, instead of doing a liberal half-assed move that just makes it easy for fascists to resurge again.

“Europe must combat far-right at the source” … “We, as Europe, must limit non-skilled migration of all”

Do you listen to yourself? If yes, tell me a time and place and I can show you what your first statement means in relation to your second statement 🙃

generative AI, which is definitionally explicit in terms of how the technology works, and can therefore be banned. Analytical AI (like, mammography scan pattern recognition, which is the only “AI” of value) is technologically disjointed, not created by the typical genAI companies, and can therefore be excluded from the ban.

Why can’t you outlaw it? Define generative/inference AI systems, ban companies from interacting with EU people and companies, and then heavily punish anything being revealed to be commercially sold, made or used with that AI within the EU.

yeah exactly! AI should have never been allowed to exist and/or allowed to be used in the EU, and anything created with it should be heavily punished.

Shooting yourself in the foot so others can’t shoot you in the foot? No.

How about outlawing and banning the shooting of feet instead? That might work better.

No disrespect to you, but it is clear you don’t understand the technology well.

Algorithms are, per definition, routine computations to perform a task. Even clicking on a link and then the browser requesting and displaying the page associated with it is an algorithm!

And about (generative) AI: -They cannot be made energy efficient because generation (giving you a text or image) is incredibly energy consuming -You cannot build an AI without bias or discrimination, because all your training material has to be unbiased and without discrimination - and social progress means that we will continue to recognize previously unknown harms in society. AI can only be as unbiased as its most biased training material. And the amount of data you need for training is too high to be efficient to gather before training. -AI cannot be made to be accurate. It is definitionally impossible, because it is basically an extension of auto-correct - it can only predict the next likely word from a huge collection of data. Accuracy is never a part of the algorithm of AI. -In terms of public service, it would be better to point out above chatbots that they can only generate legibile text, all other aspects are secondary.

So, in summary, what you suggest is technologically impossible, or at least misguided.

EU investing in AI is not a win, good, or anything desirable.

AI is the worst “technology” to surface in a “post-fact” news, which helps proliferate fake news, misinformation, biased and propagandized talking points (i.e. pro-israel, anti-hong-kong-sovereignty, racism and transphobia…), kills jobs and undervalues labour in a cost of living and housing crisis.

This investment is a signal saying that the EU will not be a union for its people, but for its elite and businesses. It’s an abdication of morals by EU politicians and governments.

Do people not realise that von der Leyen is a right-wing fan of totalitarianism? What she supports cannot be good for us.

the propaganda bots are out in a rage today. Go puke words somewhere else why don’t you?

liking LLMs? That’s whack.

I think you’re right that they don’t need to be shipped through the US, but they most probably are and will be, and using other suppliers or logistics firms that don’t isn’t always cheaper, especially with large volume shipments. Otherwise, even if there are consoles in storage, the increase has to be targeted at a whole market to also partially stave off the tariff costs and to unify a market on its conditions.

Also, Sony were the first to raise the prices for games beyond 60€.

I the US it’s mostly due to the fascist tariffs, no? Latin America has a similar issue, tho that’s because of the tax system in for example Brazil. Considering the financial situation in Argentina, hyperinflation may make price increases necessary.

Sony, on the other hand, is known to raise prices, and may have been the pioneer of raising prices for their games and consoles. That’s why I didn’t care for them.