I honestly thought that maybe Lemmy wouldn’t have karma farmers, since there is no global points tracker. But here we are, with an exact copy-paste of an old post being presented as though it is a authentic sharing of personal thoughts.

Why do this?

Realistic AI generated faces have been available for longer than realistic AI generated conversation ability.

It means death. -1 life.

Probably, but the stink will linger for quite a long time.

There’s a burger place near my house that I use to go to almost every week. But then the quality started going down, and I stopped going there. That was two years ago. Maybe they fixed the problems, but I’m not going to know - because I no longer go there. Snap is like that.

It’s crazy how you missed that point yet harp about intelligence.

I’m not sure why you said that. The person you are responding didn’t ‘miss that point’. They were themselves pointing out that other people have missed it. You are both criticising people for missing the same point.

I’d rather download a bear than download a strange man, that’s for sure.

The full list: https://code.gouv.fr/sill/list

Hold on. That page does not list VLC or KeePass. Is there more info about this other than the list? Or is the info in the title of this post incorrect?

[edit]

I see now. The page does not list VLC or KeePass, but those two both do come up if you put them into the search box. The software listed on the page is a very long list, but it is apparently on the ‘most popular’ stuff - not the entire list. (Although it is strange to see a heap of niche stuff, and stuff I’ve never heard of on the ‘most popular’ list while VLC doesn’t make the cut.)

I’m not sure this list is a very strong endorsement by the French Government. It seems to just be listing free software options, and then asking other people to sign up to say which ones they use.

It does kind of feel like the UN could use a refresh. In particular, the veto powers given to certain countries feels bad. There may be good reasons for that system, but the system is not good - and the details of the reasons have definitely shifted over time such that the choice of countries with veto power is now highly questionable.

My point was that “lose money on every prompt” would be true in a technical sense regardless of how much people were paying for a subscription. The subscription money is money in, and the cost of calculations is money out. It’s still money out regardless of what is coming in.

As for whether the business is profitable or not, it’s not so easy to tell unless you’re an insider. Companies like this basically never make a ‘profit’ on paper, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t enriching themselves. They are counting their own pay as part of the costs, and they set their pay to whatever they like. They are also counting various research and expansion efforts as part of the cost. So yeah, they might not have any excess money to pay dividends to shareholders, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t profitable.

I find the dynamics of lichess.org vs chess.com very interesting.

They are similar in terms of features. Both have decent interfaces, puzzles, matchmaking, live viewing boards and broadcasts for tournaments, training programs, etc. But chess.com has ads, and features locked behind subscription paywalls where lichess.org does not. (Everything is free on lichess, except for the little logo next to a user’s name to say they have supported the site with donations.)

But on the other hand, chess.com seems to have a higher number pro players; and probably a larger number of players overall.

I think its very interesting to think about why that is the case. Why would more people choose the version that is more expensive, but does not have more features?

I’ve thought of a few reasons, but I think probably the biggest effect is that chess.com has more money to splash around (because it sells ads, and asks for user subscriptions), and it uses big chunk of this money to advertise itself. eg. by sponsoring players and streamers, offering larger prizes for its own tournaments; etc.

And although I definitely think lichess is better, since it is generously supplying a high-quality product without trying to self-enrich, I do sometimes think maybe what chess.com is doing is ok too: in the sense that it is not only self-enriching, but also supporting the sport itself a bit by paying money to players, events, and commentators. Lichess does this too - but less of it, because they have less money.

(Note that chess.com also does some really crappy stuff, such as censoring any mention of lichess in the chat of their twitch broadcasts. That definitely does not help support the sport.)

People don’t usually interact with a hammer by talking to it. They interact by holding it, placing it, hammering with it. Respect for a hammer (or similar tool) would be based around those kinds of actions.

Whereas people do interact with a chatbot by talking to it. So then respect for a chatbot would be built around what is said.

People can show respect for a hammer, a house, a dinner prepared by their spouse, their spouse, a chatbot, etc… but respect for each of those things will look a bit different.

Well sure, answering the queries continues to cost the company money regardless of what subscription the user has. The company would definitely make more money if the users paid for subscription and then made zero queries.

I’d try this, but I don’t know what address to email them at. All of the support / contact instructions are a labyrinth of automated systems, with the fallback option of using the ‘community forum’. Google doesn’t seem to want anyone to contact them for any reason.

I thought that too at first, which is why I tried every other available option first. But that theory is disproven by the fact that the first attempt with the number told me that the given number was not registered to the account (and so I still couldn’t log in). Clearly they were comparing the entered number to something they already had.

I didn’t get technical on you - that’s kind of the point. But whatever; I was just trying to help with some context. Ignore if you like.

Look man, from a technical language point of view there is nothing whatsoever wrong with calling people ‘females’. However, by speaking to such people face-to-face you quickly learn that basically not one likes to be called that. The reasons are subtle, and frankly not very important. But the fact remains that calling people ‘females’ is now seen as a sign that you don’t understand or respect them - on the grounds that you are using a phrase that you’ve been asked not to use. Just say ‘women’ instead.

That’s true on face value. The issue is that accusations of misandry are almost always unfounded, and only made as a way to deflect and to attack women. So when people start talking about misandry, that’s generally a red flag.

It’s similar to how “all lives matter” is definitely a true and good value - but yet it is almost always said as a way to divert support away from vulnerable groups. So although the literal meaning is good, it is fair to assume that people saying it do not have good intentions.

It’s pretty harsh to just casually suggest that a person be a TERF without any specific evidence.

Sure. I agree that’s the problem; and none of these analogies really help make that any easier to understanding. Certainly they don’t have a “murder as much as you like” policy! (I find that analogies are rarely useful - except for manipulating how you want people to feel.)

Perhaps murder is a bit extreme. It’s more like “we’ve noticed you’re taking woodchips from the playground. That’s not allowed. We wouldn’t mind if you were just taking a few chips, but you’ve taken 2 tons.”

[edit] But putting analogies aside, the service really should make rules and restrictions like this clear in advance. That seems like the real failing here, rather than the rule itself.