skisnow

• Doesn’t solve a problem

• Recording everything around you is fucking creepy

I mean at some stage you have to start wondering about the sort of person with a less-than-one-week-old account that’s up in here defending them so vociferously. I notice you’re also in other AI threads on Lemmy being equally shilly.

I read your list and stand by my statement. Half the things on that list are novelties that you’d get quickly bored of, and the other half have solutions that don’t require pervert glasses. I see zero problems being solved anywhere in the list you just made.

also I suspect the shill bots have started to find their way over here too.

The actual usefulness and potential of smart glasses, especially ones with cameras, is almost unfathomable.

I thought the first paragraph was leading to a decent point, but “unfathomable usefulness” is an almost rabid level of overstatement. There’s some fathomable applications as an aid for blind people, but every other use case that’s ever come up has ranged from “novelty” to “really fucking creepy” with the occasional “looks like a useful thing but didn’t really solve an actual problem we had with the previous way of doing it”.

I’m not trying to defend Snapchat here, but the suggestion that any reasonable person would describe broadcasting to an audience of 100 users as “sending a private message” is just not in touch with reality

They’re not using LLMs to analyse MRI scans. There are image processing algorithms for that, but they’re a whole other thing to what this entire thread is about.

Also, are you a fucking bot? I’ve read all your comments so far in this thread and uhh yeah. Please feel free to jog on now.

You’re missing the point of why AI output is so obnoxious.

It’s like an updated version of the bullshit asymmetry principle: it takes considerably more time and energy to parse AI-produced works (art, text, music etc) than it does for traditional low-quality low-effort shit, because it’s produced in large quantities and has a superficial look of being professionally produced.

AI hasn’t made shit artists better, but it has enabled them to suck all the oxygen out of the room and make the process of seeking and enjoying good art intractable and infuriating. It also hasn’t made good artists better either, because good artists are already better than AI.

Is the yellow tint in the strip him deliberately trying to make some sort of point, or is it always like that?

It’s a terrible thing that’s happened, but fuck gadgetreview for that shitty misleading clickbait headline.

Editor knew they wouldn’t get the same impact with “teacher posted in a group chat that they were going to shoot a student”, so “group” becomes “private” and the detail about the threat gets moved way down into the article body. This is a journal who clearly wants to tell you what to think.

found the person who commented without reading the article

Facebook’s AI auto summarizer that it passes to Google et al, is currently rewriting The National’s reporting of Rod Liddle’s death to say “he dies of alcoholism, suicide or cancer, a short illness followed by a heart attack”.

As usual, it was without their explicit consent.

I’m sure you could probably dig up an exception or two, but by and large “using tools to trace real-life objects and photographs” isn’t an accurate portrayal of the sort of thing that gets people flak online. Every tracing scandal I’ve seen on tumblr is an artist essentially plagiarising work from another artist in the same community.

It’s the difference between “my character is shooting a bow in this panel, let’s find some references for archery poses so I can get it right” versus “oh hey that’s a cool picture someone drew of an archer, I think I’ll trace it and fill in my character’s face and colours instead and post it online and pretend like I made it all myself without crediting the person who actually did 99% of the creative process”