That AI (as in “generative AI”) helps in learning if you give it the right prompt. There is evidence to support that when a user asks AI to implement code, that they (the user) won’t touch it because they are unfamiliar of the code it generated. The AI effectively made a psychological black box that no programmer wants to touch even for a (relatively speaking) small snippet of code to a larger program, that was programmed by another programmer or him.
To further generalize, I fully believe AI doesn’t improve the learning process, it makes it more accessible and easier for less literate people in a field to understand. I can explain Taylor expansions and power series simplistically to my brother who is less literate and familiar with math. I would be shocked that after a brief general overview he can now approximate any function or differential equation.
Same applies with chatGPT: You can ask it to explain simplistically taylor and power series solutions, or better yet, approximate a differential equation, it doesn’t change the fact that you still can’t replicate it. I know I’m talking about an extreme case where the person trying to learn Taylor expansions has no prior experience with math, but it still won’t even work for someone who does…
I want to pose a simple thought experiment of my experience using AI on say (for example) taylor expansions. Lets assume i wants to learn Taylor expansion, ive already done differential calculus (the main requirement for taylor expansions) and I asks chatGPT “how to do Taylor expansions” as in what is the proof to the general series expansion, and show an example of applying Taylor expansions to a function. What happens when I try and do a problem is when I experience a level of uncertainty in my ability to actually perform it, and this is when I ask chatGPT if i did it correct or not. But you sort of see what I’m saying it’s a downward spiral of loosing your certainty, sanity, and time commitment over time when you do use it.
That is what the programmers are experiencing, it’s not that they don’t want to touch it because they are unfamiliar with the code that the AI generated, it’s that they are uncertain in their own ability to fix an issue as they may fuck it up even more. People are terrified of the concept of failure and fucking shit up, and by using AI they “solve” that issue of theirs even though the probability of it hallucinating is higher then if someone spent time figuring out any conflicts themselves.
I disagree with the belief that all police officers are automatically bad people
It’s not the premise that they are all inherently bad. It’s that there are plenty of bad ones and the good ones do nothing about them or actively protect them.
A friend of mine is a cop & a nice guy. I asked him why the hell he became a cop of all things & he said “this way, I know there’s at least one cop in existence who’s not a racist asshole.”
I countered with “Oh, so you’re just a regular asshole, then?” An he said “No sir; I am an ass hat. An asshole is an ass the whole time. If people are cool, I’m cool with them, but if someone wants to be an ass, I can put my ass hat on to match their energy.”
I can respect that.
One of my friends was a rural police officer, which I didn’t know. Dude is super friendly and queer. Unfortunately he had a lot of terribly sad stories of AD&D and DUIs. He finally called it quits when one woman rode up an industrial garage door to impress her friend and got lethally caught in it. Found her friend holding her legs to try and save her. Too many terrible things happened to nice but terribly misguided (or drunk) people.
I think that job hurt his heart.
i agree with you.
My best friend is ex-police. My brother is police.
They’re not saints but they’re good people, certainly not exploring or abusing anyone.
Then again, we’re not in the USA so I can’t comment on what it’s like there.
Biased
I have cops in my family. They’re actually all really great people and weirdly positive parents.
If they know a bad cop, and didn’t do anything about them, they’re just as guilty.
I love how you blame everyone. It must feel freeing. And you must be hell on jaywalkers and people who don’t use their signal light.
LMAO. I apply the same bullshit they use on civilians. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, you’re a fucking duck right?
“You’re in a high drug area, you must be buying/selling”
“You’re hanging out with known criminals, you must be doing similar activities”
A cop covers and looks the other way for other cops? He’s just as guilty as the corrupt cop.
Keep 👅 🥾
That a hot dog is not a taco
that racism is still pervasive even in blue/liberal areas, they just hide it better, plus transplants(people who move to blue areas) often come from more conservative or moderate areas, during one of my speech writing classes in college people were telling thier backstory and thier was one saying they became more conservative when they moved here to west coast, plus we have the ones that escaped from “communist” countries, pretty obvious when was pratically sucking off the military/war effort that america does, during the end of BUSH 2nd term. plus the AA on asian violence and racism never truely get addressed in these blue area, it just gets swept under the rug by the media, for the sake of offending AA people.
It’s common to advise young people that Working hard and grinding when you are young, then having relatively calm and relaxation life for the rest of the life.
I think the relaxation never comes, if you work to death right now then still there is a pretty good chance you would be doing same 10 years from now. I believe ther should be balance between work and life no matter what age.
Also working hard doesn’t get you anywhere. You have to also be an asshole that claws your way out of the bottom of the bucket of crabs.
There’s so many really good hard workers at dead end jobs that get treated like shit.
I encourage everyone to aim to have their midlife crisis moment sometime in their mid twenties.
Get off the treadmill of life while it’s still cheap to hop on and off.
About relaxation. I’ve found that I can’t relax untill I’ve chilled for 2 weeks. Until then I have a wheel in my head that just won’t stop spinning. But after that 2 weeks I transform.
That there is nothing after death. That praying is pointless. I’m not a Christian as such, and I’ve no interest in debating the topic. I just find confident absolutists slightly annoying, be they religious fundamentalists or obnoxious atheists. Not that I’m saying all atheists are obnoxious, but there’s a certain angsty teen attitude that will assert that there’s nothing after death and I find it slightly arrogant.
This is not a popular belief. There are more religious people in the world than none religious people.
But to your point; there exists no evidence that there is something after death, certainly not in the wishful thinking way people do. Ergo, there is nothing after death.
You had me right to until the last sentence. Without evidence of anything beyond death, all interpretations of what’s beyond death are equally valid. Some require fewer assumption than others so you could say by Occam’s razor they’re more likely, but making fewer assumptions still means making assumptions.
All interpretatioms of what’s beyond are equally valid.
Why? Things in reality don’t work that way.
Occam’s Razor is not the only tool; Hitchen’s Razor makes for a very good bullshit filter. And so far anything about the afterlife, or even the entire concept of the afterlife to begin with, is entirely asserted without evidence.
And so far anything about the afterlife, or even the entire concept of the afterlife to begin with, is entirely asserted without evidence.
Correct, and so is the assertion that there is nothing following death.
For clarity, I do agree that I think there is nothing and that any concept of anything following death is a coping mechanism, but I’m not going to pretend that a lack of evidence for an afterlife is evidence towards nothingness.
But it is. The lack of evidence for unicorns is evidence there are no unicorns. That’s how evidence works.
If someone makes the claim they are required to provide proof, they have the burdon of proof. If no proof is to be found it can be rejected. Hence, Hitchen’s Razor.
And yet you claim that nothing exists beyond death without evidence. You provide no evidence and assume that a lack of evidence on other theories is evidence of your theory. This is the same methodology theologists used as “evidence” for the heavens. By assuming a default position exists, you’re allowing a lack of evidence on any other position of the argument to support your own position.
My point is that nothingness as a state of being (or lack thereof) beyond death is its own theory that also has no evidence. This is the same for all theories of what’s beyond death and therefore all theories are equally valid, or invalid if you prefer.
From my perspective in programming terms, you’re seeing a variable without a value and assuming no value means 0 whereas I’m saying 0 is also a value which is different from “no value was defined”.
A shared experience constitutes good evidence. But the experience might involve a special technique for getting the experience. So if you don’t do the technique then you don’t get the evidence.
The technique might involve serious time and effort. So most of us will never do it.
So now we have 2 sets of people, those who did the technique and those who didn’t, with different evidence in hand, arriving at different conclusions.
I have never, in my 48 years, had anyone I’ve known in real life try to assert their beliefs on me. Perhaps I’m just lucky. My own mother is a Christian, whereas my father is agnostic. Neither have tried to tell me what is or isn’t. They tell me what they believe, which is fine. It’s only a certain type of atheist, of which I’ve met several, who feels compelled to loudly and confidently tell me about the nature of existence with absolute certainty.
To believe that we die, that’s it and there’s nothing more to it is perfectly reasonable. But to assert it as a fact implies that they have knowledge beyond others, which I find difficult not to interpret as arrogance.
I’ve had everything and everyone try to assert their beliefs. If nobody has ever approached you about anything then you’ve been very lucky indeed.
Anything from Jehova’s Witnesses and their dumb little pamphlets, Muslims blaring prayers across the street while displaying billboards on intelligent design, to scientologists starting the most disingenuous arguments.
These are fairly normal occurrences in cities. Perhaps not so much in the countryside, but even then I’ve had the Christian priest always casually bringing up joining Sunday mass.
You and me both.
That the cereal should be poured before the milk.
Thought it was illegal the other way around. You probably think the toilet paper should fold over the back too. Don’t you?
But cereral first is only sane and moral. We can’t have a floating mound. And that’s to say nothing of volumetric concerns.
You sprinkle some more cereal on the milk whenever you run out of cereal.
The whole point is to not have soggy cereal
Really depends on preference and cereal type
It’s less of an argument between milk first vs second, but people that like soggy vs crunchy cereal.
The important thing is to not add too much cereal before you can eat it all. Adding in cereal last just helps make sure you don’t.
My uncle’s ex-wife would pour a bowl of frosted flakes, pour milk on it, put the bowl in the refrigerator, then eat it the next day.
I don’t think that’s why they got divorced, but I’ve always believed it was a contributing factor…
I eat my cereal dry by the handful then drink milk when my mouth gets too cottonie
“Natural” means healthy
I like to point out to those people that arsenic is natural. Malaria is natural too.
Cynicism isn’t inherently more mature than believing that things can be made better. For a lot of people “everything is fucked, nothing matters” is a way of absolving themselves from the responsibility and personal risk involved in actively trying to make the world a better place.
I agree with this. People think being pessimistic is more realistic than being optimistic. They think spinning things as negative is automatically more realistic than the positive spin. In reality, realism sees both sides and adjusts one’s behaviour to make the best out of everything
They get mad at the very idea that people can work together and successfully create change, despite numerous historical examples. It’s actively immature to be wholly cynical
I agree. And I think that cynicism is just easier. The claims of maturity part is mere justification.
That “growth” is inherently a good thing to do and if you aren’t trying to grow as a person everyday then you’re not living ‘correctly’
Excuse my curiosity. Do you think learning and experiencing new things is not an important aspect of life? Or maybe you just have a different definition of growth than me?
A life without would be stagnant and boring to me.
I believe where we differ is the degree. I do still learn new things for fun and whatnot, but if there is ever a time I am NOT doing that (besides work, sleep, or helping society as a whole in some other way), I’ve been conditioned to feel guilty. Like, if I’m not growing at all times, then I am personally spitting on the graves of all my ancestors
I think growing/expanding your experience in life is good, but ya, I definitely don’t agree with that definition, that’s intense.
Can’t even “grow” when your parents destroyed your self-confidence.
Eh, you can circle back through nihilism into absurdism, and wind up in a place close enough to self-confidence to actually turn into it eventually.
Ask me how I know.
Have you considered growing past that? /s. Stupid joke aside, wholly relatable for lots – including myself – i imagine.
the industrial revolution and its consequences. also the enlightenment, fuck those guys
aaah. the morally of cancer
One of the best takeaways from the Wizard of Earthsea books. Ambition can be poison.
I love Earthsea
That a god exists.
Or karma, or fairness.
Karma is only the law of cause and effect nothing more, anyone saying it is anything else is misguided. When people start thinking in terms of good or bad coming to you for doing good or bad it is only as much as you have built systems in your life for good or bad coming to you, like not choosing to cause a problem for someone else because you feel bad means they aren’t going to snap back at you.
Karma exists. Western karma is nonsense.
It’s not supposed to fairness/consequences in this life but rather across lifetimes.
It’s fine for you to believe but I see it as totally made up to keep people in line.
When we die we’re dead and don’t care because we are no more.
You might be right, but you don’t actually know that for certain. If your consciousness emerged from nothingness once, there’s no reason why it could not do so again (albeit probably in a completely unrecognizable form).
Personally, I am agnostic as to whether reincarnation is a thing or not, but honestly, when taking the numbers into account, oblivion sounds like a much better deal than spending my next billion lifetimes as a bug that lasts for only a brief time before being eaten in one of countless agonizing ways. (There is a reason why the Eastern religions that believe in reincarnation tend to emphasize that the ultimate goal is to escape it.)
I mean, why not know for certain? We are made up from electrical impulses between our synapses and literally cease to exist on power down.
Proving this of course goes into philosophy and belief which - as an Autist - eludes me in the reasoning.
However I might be one of the few who can be pretty certain about it, since I died once already (heart stopped) and the following year I had to build myself up again not only physically but also from the mind in an indescribable way.
So if that had progressed further I am very certain parts of what defines me as a person would’ve been lost.
I’m right here dude
Oh, thank Albert! I was looking for you.
Here is the list of new things I want that I came up with since we last talked…
Meh. I don’t see that belief much on Lemmy.
You didn’t specify it had to be a popular belief on Lemmy. 🤷♂️
It would be pointless otherwise.
You’d just get a bunch of popular complaints about what those other people believe.
It’s what’s popular here, and dissent from that, that’s interesting
You should’ve specified that’s what you were looking for, then.
if I underline every single obvious thing then we’ll be here all day.
Not with your attitude, we won’t be.
Oh, I get it. I would be like me saying you’re a moron. Pointless because Lemmy as a community agrees with the statement.
Yes, something classy like that.
It would be pointless otherwise
So we can’t just vent about real-world issues? Everything in your post needs to be through the lense of this very specific social media platform?
Pick literally any religion.
Pick literally any belief.
That.
It’s like some kind of low hanging fruit party in here.
What’s a commonly held belief here on lemmy that you disagree with?
God.
We don’t care about God here. You got anything we care about?
You said popular belief. You did not say popular belief on lemmy
Well now you know. So do you?
Just answering your question.
People argue back and forth whether capitalism or socialism/communism is a superior system and they are all wrong. Those concepts are just tools. Saying one economic system applies to all situations is as silly as saying the only tool you need to build a house is a hammer.
it’s more about which one is better for more situations, no? it is much harder for different situations in the same area to dynamically decide which economic system is better.
Not really. It’s entirely possible to pick and choose. We chose a socialist model for fire department because the capitalist model proved disastrous. Many countries successfully did the same for healthcare, retirement, and all sorts of things. At the same time, capitalism is great when you want a million choices on TV to watch or a grocery store with a whole aisle of different types of cookies.
To me, the difference is the impact of failures. If someone starts a company making a new type of cookie and it proves not to be profitable, it goes bankrupt. Unfortunate, but ultimately not a big deal. If someone has cancer and curing them isn’t profitable, you can’t just give up. That person’s life is more important than profit.
welfare capitalism is still capitalism as even firefighters are still subjugated by class and capital
If the essentials of life are all shifted to “welfare capitalism” the power of class and capital to subjugate is greatly diminished. Add in mass union membership and it gets even better.
let’s use your example of firefighters. the obvious subjugation is the government, when looking at its budget, diverting funds away to pet policies and luxuries (not to mention Robert Moses–style redlining), which is how you have volunteer firefighters that cease all activities at night when you needed them to handle a 4AM electrical backyard fire where i grew up.
the less obvious subjugation is capitalism itself. when the firefighters walk home under this “socialism”, their problems of survival are not solved. they have to take their capital into the nearest grocer and be subject to the horrors of the market: the nearest walmart, the #1 shrink on communities today, replacing the mom-and-pop of memories and community gatherings with a well-oiled, prices machine that runs at a loss until it becomes the only shop (or only competing with similar price machines) in town, at which point it maximizes its profit margin and sells the same cheap items at a markup just enough to be purchasable under welfare assistance. firefighters, historically poorly compensated for their public service, are forced to limit themselves to walmart’s stale options and other working class horrors. this sticks you with the difficult choice of either increasing regulation—risking further government discrimination and costs that burden firefighter funding—or maintaining the status quo. you’ve got every industry risking safety, health, and quality to do things cheaper, and the people relying on regulation and inspection that can never get through every nook and cranny to defend the consumer instead of eliminating the perverted incentive that is capitalism. the final alternative to combining firefighter socialism with capitalism here is to distribute food and other essentials instead of salary, which uh i don’t think is a good idea if legends of government rations and their poor variety hold. maybe when the government is run by omniscient telepaths…
i agree with your last sentence, though. i support syndicalism, which needs to go further—into governance—than just membership. i’ll admit that you could call a syndicalist society capitalist which isn’t something i’ve thought of before
I think public conversations are made of simplistic ideas. Maybe because they’re stronger. Easier to convey and digest.
So people may think deep and complex but societies think shallow and simple. Something like that.
One of the downsides of democracy no doubt.
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”
That attention span exists as a relevant concept and that people are ruining it with technology.
If our attentiveness is struggling it is undoubtedly because life is harder and crueler these days.
Our attention, if we are being treated humanely and sustainability by the societal conditions around us, is fine (we aren’t though, this being the issue).
edit Same thing with all the “kids these days” things about kids not being able to focus, being a kid these days has got to feel hopeless in a million ways that are too crushing to focus on not the least of which are the adults around you condescending your fears of the future even as they destroy it.
life is harder and crueler these days.
I think you just found the popular belief that I disagree with.
Compared to most of human history, life now is pretty good. This article uses childhood mortality (globally 4.4% versus 50% for most of human history) to make the point. There’s still lots of room to improve - the EU has a tenth the global average - but humanity has made incredible progress on that front over the past two centuries.
Looking at a smaller time scale, the human development index is trending upward everywhere since 1990.
I don’t think it’s that life is hard or less hard… I think it’s that it’s lost its meaning and reasoning.
Like farming and hunting gave reason. Being able to buy a home by working gave a reason… Etc.
But now for many people they just basically work for other people and eat shitty food and sleep. Nothing really comes back to them…
facepalm have you tried looking up at the real world around you recently?
No. I live under a rock and haven’t noticed that there’s a global increase in far-right movements, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and a race between Sam Altman and Elon Musk to see who can boil the oceans faster to make better slop factories.
Bad news makes for good headlines, and we absolutely have serious, pressing problems worldwide. Despite that, ask yourself if you’d rather live in 1925 than 2025. 1825? 1725? Think about how the average person lived and died in those times. When was life actually easier and kinder for most people?
Oh my god, this attitude that someone is not allowed to be happy about some things because other things are bad drives me up the fucking wall.
Of course you’re going to be depressed and anxious and feel like the world is ending and there’s nothing that can be done besides wait for full societal collapse if you set these rules that you can’t enjoy the good until things are perfect.
No but the future that was possible for the older people around me in my country is gone and global collapse is accelerating, things are getting worse… what the hell does 1925, 1825 or 1725 got to do with it?
Why would I continue this conversation with you if you’re going to downvote my replies? That’s rude.
Why would I not downvote a comment I consider missed the essential point on something I am passionate about and feel materially impacts us all?
The effect of a downvote is that fewer people see the comment. If you think fewer people should see my comments, I can assist you with that by not posting them.
If you feel I’ve missed your point rather than understanding and disagreeing with it, feel free to articulate it more clearly. Your claim as I understood it was life is harder and crueler (for most people, most places) these days (than at some point in the past).
I can think of two relevant things that bear upon your attention here.
Stress, which makes your attention kind of jump around.
Temptation, which makes your attention go places without you choosing it. It’s a kind of loss of control.
I think most people have always had short attention spans but technology has taken advantage of that to captivate us. History just tells the story of those who lengthened their attention spans on purpose. History is rarely the story of common people, it is often told by the exceptional about the exceptional and this distorts our perception of humanity significantly
