Bwaz

joined 2 years ago
[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago

Yes, you DID vote for that. You just trusted FOX News, who didn't tell you that's what you were voting for.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Bookie. Possibly my favorite show ever.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 48 points 4 days ago (5 children)

They flat out DON'T work at all in detecting lies. Well documented as total fraud. Polygraph just means 'many graphs', which is all they produce: many graphs of sensors output not having anything to do with honest or dishonest responses.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

But, but -- he said before they were kissing his ass.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

So now I guess Trump really is a billionaire?

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

SEEMS like?????

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Gee, wouldn't it be a surprise if a stock selloff by administration people had occurred just before this announcement? No one would expect that.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I used to really like the sound of the 70's band America, but their lyrics were so butt stupid, and pretentiously stupid that I can't bear to hear them.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It occurs to me that the electoral system might be used in Pres elections to work (very slightly) in that direction. What if a number of associated candidates made a pact that their electors, if elected, would vote for whichever of the pact makers got the most popular votes overall? Like if Sanders and Biden and Harris were in a pact like that of Democrats (named chosen of unlikely future candidates). People could vote for whichever, avoiding split-the-vote tactics. If Sanders won a state, but Harris got more pop votes nationwide, his electors would instead vote for her. Complicated maybe, but it wouldn't need any constitutional changes, and might make disasters like a Trump win less likely. Dumb idea?

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago

Because the people who would receive and forward the reports of it have been fired? Just a wild guess.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

I'd like there to be a web-wide expectation by everyone that any AI generated text, comment, story or image be clearly marked as being AI. That people would feel incensed and angry when it wasn't labeled so. Rather than wondering whether there were a person with a soul producing the content, or losing faith that real info could be found online.

7
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Bwaz@lemmy.world to c/mindmatter@lemmy.world
 

AI could provide some minor deshitification of the internet by answering obvious questions implied by clickbaity titles. In other words, comb the link and pop up, in simplest terms, what a title baits you with.

For instance, a browser plugin that could pop up a balloon showing "It's Portland, Oregon" when you hover your mouse over "One US city likes its food carts more than any other". Or "Tumbling Dice" when you hover over "The Stones' song that Mick Jagger hates to sing". Even give "Haggle over the price and options" on the classic clickbait "Car dealers don't want you to know this one trick!". All without you having to sift through pages of crap filler text (likely AI generated) and included ads to satisfy trivial curiousity you might be baited by.

I wouldn't even mind too much if the service collected and sold the fact that I did (or didn't) get curious about the related topics. It would still be fewer ads in the face overall. So maybe monetizing like that could motivate someone to develop a service?

Or would that just make the net worse?

view more: next ›