JollyTheRancher
Absolutely, words do matter! That’s precisely my point. If we’re to take every word and phrase at its literal, original meaning, we’d have quite the linguistic overhaul on our hands. It’d be a monumental task (and not literally involving monuments). But let’s remember, language is dynamic and ever-evolving. It’s as much about communication and shared understanding as it is about individual words. Let’s focus on the bigger picture and not get bogged down in the weeds—or should I say, not literally stuck in marshy grounds!
Absolutely. This is the same reason I am against the use of sunrise and sunset. The sun isn’t actually doing anything!
Peanuts are not actually nuts, we must fix this as well.
I heard someone say they were head over heels in love with their boyfriend the other day, imagine my outrage that they were standing normal on their feet!
We should also get rid of the word hemophobia, they’re not actually afraid of blood, they’re just having a neurological reaction.
It is just all so infuriating
Oh, and don’t even get me started on “sleeping like a baby”! I’ve never seen a baby sleep through the night without waking up multiple times.
Or when people claim they’re “freezing” when it’s just a bit chilly. To my knowledge, they’re not turning into ice!
Ever heard someone say they’re “starving”? Unless they’ve been stranded on a deserted island recently, I doubt it.
And the term “caught red-handed”? Unless their hands are actually painted red, I think we might be exaggerating.
It’s all so perplexing; words just aren’t what they used to be!
I am not sure they have to reach AGI to replace almost everyone. The amount of investment in them is now higher than it has ever been. Things are, and honestly have been, going quick. No, they are not as advanced as some people make them out to be, but I also don’t think the next steps are as nebulously difficult as some want to believe. But I would love it if you save this comment and come back in 5 years and laugh at me, I will probably be pretty relieved as well
I read an article once about how when humans hear that someone has died, the first thing they try and do is come up with a reason that whatever befell the deceased would not happen to them. Some of the time there was a logical reason, some of the time there’s not, but either way the person would latch onto the reason to believe they were safe. I think we’re seeing the same thing here with AI. People are seeing a small percentage of people lose their job, with a technology that 95% of the world or more didn’t believe was possible a couple years ago, and they’re searching for reasons to believe that they’re going to be fine, and then latching onto them.
I worked at a newspaper when the internet was growing. I saw the same thing with the entire organization. So much of the staff believed the internet was a fad. This belief did not work out for them. They were a giant, and they were gone within 10 years. I’m not saying we aren’t in an AI bubble now, but, there are now several orders of magnitude more money in the internet now than there was during the Dot Com bubble, just because it’s a bubble doesn’t mean it wont eventually consume everything.
While I do not think they were in the right to have the users “unmasked”, my understanding is that the users in question were talking about how the Austin internet provider, Grande, was good for torrenting, so the attempt to unmask the users wasn’t meant to get the users in trouble but to show that Grande benefitted financially from a lax policy towards pirating, so them not mentioning piracy in their comments wasn’t necessarily the end of the conversation, if they were willing to say now that it was in reference to piracy. I do think it sounds like grasping at straws, but I imagine the potential value they were hoping to get from Grande was worth that grasping to them
The FTC has had a spine since 2020, they have been really busy - https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases
