Disruptive protest, no matter how annoying, is valid and should be protected under law. When the government moves to ban protest and dissent, they’ve crossed the line into authoritarianism.
The right to protest is a fundamental of democracy, and we should not accept any erosion of the fundamentals of democracy.
Piracy equals culture preservation in an age of subscription services.
I suppose all the people standing in front of you are record label executives then
No of course not.
I still pay for things I can actually own, however subscription services routinely change, limit or simple remove items that you supposedly bought.
Not only is this not unpopular, I have my doubts that it’s even an opinion
That this meme is low effort content and it’s spamming everywhere
It’s the first time I’ve seen it.
Can I borrow the rock you’ve been under?
I guess I just unsubscribe from communities where there are a lot of low-effort memes?
But seeing it here is fine, it’s started some discussion.
Memes are low effort in general
The vast majority of humans are actually nice, altruistic and not selfish if you treat them with respect. And hence anarchism would not resolve in everyone killing each other.
Copyright is far too long and should only last at most 20 years.
Actually, George Washington would agree with me if he was still alive. He and the other founding fathers created the notion of copyright, which was to last 14 years. Then big corporations changed the laws in their favor.
Wild how corporations have so much leeway to dictate the law.
Own an idea for 14 years, own a person for life
Copyright and proprietariness will vanish in a better society
14 renewable once (if the author was still alive) to 28 years. I could live with that.
Totally agree. “Intellectual property” shouldn’t be a thing. Yes, writing a novel or recording a song is work, but so is building a house. Craftspersons don’t get royalties from people using the widgets that they make; they get paid only for the first sale of the product.
That said, intangibles like written and recorded media are qualitatively different, in that they can be effortlessly copied. Without some sort of legal protection, creators wouldn’t be able to profit from even that first sale. A limited-term copyright is an okay compromise.
But now that corporations can “own” intangible works nearly indefinitely, they’re getting greedy, and are applying that to physical objects that they sell through the subscription model. And it’s bullshit.
Yes, absolutely, roll back copyright terms to 14 years.
How about 14 seconds?
Hot extreme opinion: copyright shouldn’t exist, and authors should be covered by other means, particularly public funding based on usage numbers and donations.
Timezones are fucking stupid. Everyone should just use UTC or Zulu
Myers Briggs is posh astrology.
health insurance != healthcare
health insurance profits only exist at the expense of human suffering.
but lets make sure everyone has insurance but not care
I thought this thread was for hot takes 😉
Is this your first time in an “unpopular opinion” thread? lol
health insurance isn’t really insurance either.
it’s like a health services subscription plan with a million convoluted rules.
I wish more people understood this. Insurance is an extra cost paid to protect from catastrophe. Anything that saves you money on a regular basis is not insurance: where does the extra money come from?
Pet insurance is another bizarre misunderstanding of this nature. Unless there are procedures you are unwilling to forego to save your pet, but completely unable to afford, you are throwing money away in the long run. The entire actuarial profession exists to ensure this fact. Take what you’d spend on premiums, and invest it in a good savings vehicle instead.
Yeah, there shouldn’t be health insurance, just health care. Some things are uncertain like whether you get in a car accident, or whether a weather event causes damage to your house. Health problems are not uncertain. People will all have them. Just spend the money on training and hiring doctors and nurses to treat these issues in a large enough quantity that the care is sufficient.
Not a single one of the Marvel movies are good. They just use dopaminergic techniques to teach brains to enjoy them.
Can you elaborate on your second sentence? Not trying to be ignorant, but it genuinely sounds like “ice cream doesn’t taste good, it just has ingredients that makes your taste buds act favorable towards it”
Gosh, now I want ice cream!
I’d argue this is true of most entertainment. It works though. Cookies aren’t good either, but they trick my brain into thinking it’s happy for a few minutes. I’ll fucking take it.
Cookies aren’t good? I feel like that’s a spicier take than Marvel movies.
Have you watched the first two Raimi-directed Spiderman movies? I think they stand alone well even for someone that doesn’t typically watch superhero movies.
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you don’t support free speech at all.
All censorship is bad. One day it’s naughty racial words and then the next day religious zealots can lock people up for saying “god” in the wrong context.
ITT: people with actual unpopular opinions are being downvoted whole the popular ones are upvoted.
Here’s mine: unpopular opinions should be upvoted in this context.
Young people are people and deserving of rights, including but not limited to the vote. There is no stupid thing a young person could do with their vote that old people don’t already do and we don’t require them not to in order to keep their vote.
Young people will typically just vote how their parents tell them to. They typically just repeat what their parents say without critically thinking about things. They typically haven’t fully developed the mental capacity for things like empathy. They haven’t experienced what it’s like to work or struggle to survive.
Plenty of people vote how their parents did; that’s just how values work.
Plenty of people vote against how their parents did; that’s just how having your own identity works.
Plenty of people vote who think critically about nothing despite their so-vaunted capacity to; those people are idiots, but we don’t require them not to be. And really, most of our politicians could use some lessons in empathy, technically capable or not.
None is a reason for denying suffrage.
And nobody should have to struggle to survive; that’s a failure of modern society. And again, it’s not something we require old people to be tested for; silver spoon trust fund kids who will never know what “struggle” means aren’t kept from voting.
We don’t require old people to justify their votes. They don’t have to be rational enough, empathetic enough, or anything else enough. Old people can vote by rolling dice and nobody will stop them.
When I was mid 20s I thought young kids were too naive. I got older and saw how fucking stupid most adults are and think young kids are much smarter than their predecessors. They should absolutely have a voice in elections. 16 seems like a good age to me
If you can legally work, you should be able to legally vote!
They have a lot less lead poisoning today than those kids from 20th century past, too.
What we’re currently calling AI isn’t AI but just a language processing system that takes its best guess at a response from it’s database of information they pilfered from the internet like a more sophisticated Google.
It can’t really think for itself and it’s answers can be completely wrong. There’s nothing intelligent about it.
I hate having to explain this shit to literal Comp Sci majors.
Even if ChatGPT was literally a perfect copy of a human being it would still be 0 steps closer to a general intelligence because it does not fucking understand WHAT or HOW to actually do the things it suggests.
Even if ChatGPT was literally a perfect copy of a human being it would still be 0 steps closer to a general intelligence because it does not fucking understand WHAT or HOW to actually do the things it suggests.
What if we AI passes the turing test not because computers got intelligent but because people got dumber
that’s just a fact, not an opinion
Indeed, but it’s not the popular opinion in the general public and it’s currently the biggest buzzword in tech even if it’s wrong. People are throwing serious money at “AI” even if it isn’t.
deleted by creator
This whole open AI has Artificial General Intelligence but they’re keeping it secret! is like saying Microsoft had Chat GPT 20 years ago with Clippy.
Humans don’t even know what intelligence is, the thing we invented to try to measure who’s got the best brains - we literally don’t even have scientific definition of the word, much less the ability to test it - so we definitely can’t program it. We are a veeeeerry long way from even understanding how thoughts and memories work; and the thing we’re calling “general intelligence” ? We have no fucking idea what that even means; there’s no way a bunch of computer scientists can feed enough Internet to a ML algorithm to “invent” it. (No shade, those peepos are smart - but understanding wtf intelligence is isn’t going to come from them.)
One caveat tho: while I don’t think we’re close to AGI, I do think we’re very close to being able to fake it. Going from Chat GPT to something that we can pretend is actual AI is really just a matter of whether we, as humans, are willing to believe it.
AIXI is a (good, in my opinion) short mathematical definition of intelligence. Intelligence != consciousness or anything like that though.
Also, how do you know we aren’t faking consciousness? I sometimes wonder if things like “free will” and consciousness are just illusions and tricks our brains play on us.
For the record comp sci major here.
So I understand all that but my counter point: can we prove by empirical measure that humans operate in a way that is significantly different? (If there is, I would love to know because I was cornered by a similar talking point when making a similar argument some weeks ago)
You are ~30 trillion cells all operating concurrently with one another. Are you suggesting that is in any way similar to a Turing machine?
Yes? I think that depends on your specific definition and requirements of a turing machine, but I think it’s fair to compare the almagomation of cells that is me to the “AI” LLM programs of today.
While I do think that the complexity of input, output, and “memory” of LLM AI’s is limited in current iterations (and thus makes it feel like a far comparison to “human” intelligence), I do think the underlying process is fundamentally comparable.
The things that make me “intelligent” are just a robust set of memories, lessons, and habits that allow me to assimilate new information and experiences in a way that makes sense to (most of) the people around me. (This is abstracting away that this process is largely governed by chemical reactions, but considering consciousness appears to be just a particularly complicated chemistry problem reinforces the point I’m trying to make, I think).
Can you make a logical decision on your own even when you don’t have all the facts?
The current version of AI cannot, it makes guesses based on how we’ve programmed it, just like every other computer program.
I fail to see the distinction between “making a logical decision without all the facts” and “make guesses based on how [you’ve been programmed]”. Literally what is the difference?
I’ll concede that human intelligence is several orders more powerful, can act upon a wider space of stimuli, and can do it at a fraction of the energy efficiency. That definitely sets it apart. But I disagree that it’s the only “true” form of intelligence.
Intelligence is the ability to accumulate new information (i.e. memorize patterns) and apply that information to respond to novel situations. That’s exactly what AI does. It is intelligence. Underwhelming intelligence, but nonetheless intelligence. The method of implementation, the input/output space, and the matter of degree are irrelevant.
It’s not just about storage and retrieval of information but also about how (and if) the entity understands the information and can interpret it. This is why an AI still struggles to drive a car because it doesn’t actually understand the difference between a small child and a speedbump.
Meanwhile, a simple insect can interpret stimulus information and independently make its own decisions without assistance or having to be pre-programmed by an intelligent being on how to react. An insect can even set its own goals based on that information, like acquiring food or avoiding predators. The insect does all of this because it is intelligent.
In contrast to the insect, an AI like ChatGPT is not anymore intelligent than a calculator, as it relies on an intelligent being to understand the subject and formulate the right stimulus in the first place. Then its result is simply an informed guess at best, there’s no understanding like an insect has that it needs to zig zag in a particular way because it wants to avoid getting eaten by predators. Rather, AI as we know it today is really just a very good information retrieval system and not intelligent at all.
I have to say no, I can’t.
The best decision I could make is a guess based on the logic I’ve determined from my own experiences that I would then compare and contrast to the current input.
I will say that “current input” for humans seems to be more broad than what is achievable for AI and the underlying mechanism that lets us assemble our training set (read as: past experiences) into useful and usable models appears to be more robust than current tech, but to the best of my ability to explain it, this appears to be a comparable operation to what is happening with the current iterations of LLM/AI.
Ninjaedit: spelling
If you can’t make logical decisions then how are you a comp sci major?
Seriously though, the point is that when making decisions you as a human understand a lot of the ramifications of them and can use your own logic to make the best decision you can. You are able to make much more flexible decisions and exercise caution when you’re unsure. This is actual intelligence at work.
A language processing system has to have it’s prompt framed in the right way, it has to have knowledge in its database about it and it only responds in a way that it’s programmed to do so. It doesn’t understand the ramifications of what it puts out.
The two “systems” are vastly different in both their capabilities and output. Even in image processing AI absolutely sucks at driving a car for instance, whereas most humans can do it safely with little thought.
and exercise caution when you’re unsure
I don’t think that fully encapsulates a counter point, but I think that has the beginnings of a solid counter point to the argument I’ve laid out above (again, it’s not one I actually devised, just one that really put me on my heels).
The ability to recognize when it’s out of its depth does not appear to be something modern “AI” can handle.
As I chew on it, I can’t help but wonder what it would take to have AI recognize that. It doesn’t feel like it should be difficult to have a series of nodes along the information processing matrix to track “confidence levels”. Though, I suppose that’s kind of what is happening when the creators of these projects try to keep their projects from processing controversial topics. It’s my understanding those instances act as something of a short circuit where (if you will) when confidence “that I’m allowed to walk about this” drops below a certain level, the AI will spit out a canned response vs actually attempting to process input against the model.
The above is intended ad more a brain dump than a coherent argument. You’ve given me something to chew on, and for that I thank you!
Well, it’s an online forum and I’m responding while getting dressed and traveling to an appointment, so concise responses is what you’re gonna get. In a way it’s interesting that I can multitask all of these complex tasks reasonably effortlessly, something else an existing AI cannot do.
This is an objective fact, not an unpopular opinion
There is literally nothing unpopular about this opinion.
I don’t think this position qualifies for that meme because there are legions of people who agree.
On Lemmy definitely.
pineapple goes on pizza but everyone who likes it is doing it wrong. it needs to be fresh pineapple, grilled, with red onion.
Copyright should have stayed the original initial 14 years with possible renewal to 28 years. But like in France back then, also include the original authors (last one alive, if several) lifespan. Hence, a copyright would last either the authors lifespans or 28 years, whichever is longer.
Moreover, the patent system is being abused and does not serve the original goal of “any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement there on not before known or used.” It granted the applicant the “sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used” of his invention.. It needs major changes, including the requirement to have the “invention” be under examination by reputable third-party laboratories (such as Intertek, SGI, Underwriters Laboratories, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technischer Überwachungsverein, SGS - Société Générale de Surveillance, etc…) before being granted a patent. Nowadays, patents are given almost willy-nilly to anyone no matter how vague or obvious the supposed invention.
Nowadays, patents are being misused in Patent Ambush mechanisms and scenarios, meanwhile Patent Trolls and Hoarders whole existence is are to impede/obstruct legally and impose exorbitant levies/fees onto organization and companies actually innovating and developing useful art/process/devices. Even more incredible, there are Submarine Patents being hidden away to suddenly take hostage existing products and process of various companies by imposing extortionate royalties.
Is this an unpopular option?
