whatsuphotdog

My partner is an archivist, they attend these sorts of conferences, and we've talked about this frequently. Archivists are at best apprehensive about AI, especially shoddily implemented versions like will almost certainly be the case here.

Accuracy is everything, and the way information in the archive is presented to visitors/researchers is paramount. Anything that moves that discussion around that presentation away from human beings into the realm of artificially generated pablum is going to be met with resistance.

Think of it like how /r/askhistorians on Reddit would rather let a question go unanswered for hours so a professional can provide a proper, sourced answer, than let some random user chime in with anything. That's putting an emphasis on accuracy and providing a completeness, rather than a rapid one.

>At the current rate, it will take until 2046 to completely transcribe this series with just humans!,” Lagundo’s presentation says. She said that an AI transcript of the dataset was 90 percent correct and that it intends to share these transcripts with the public in its official catalog in November or December.

What's the rush? Why would we settle on 90% accuracy today when we could do it right and get 100%? It's not like this is mission critical information. It's an archive. Take the time and do it right.

Moreover, why is this so important that we need to burn the energy from AI to do it?

Their point is why would would anyone involved in this presentation choose to dub this AI an "expert". They're addressing the overall dishonesty in labeling it as anything other than what it is. They rightfully do not want users interacting with an AI that sports a label that misinforms them about what they're talking to.

And that is a very valid concern. One of the chief issues with all of these chat bots is that they speak like humans with unearned authority. The output is presented with an air of knowledge that it simply does not have because it can't truly "know" anything.

It's very bizarre to see all these comments downplaying this, or implying the lack of E2EE by default somehow makes it less attractive to the average user than something like Signal.

Most people care about usability and interconnectivity first and foremost because the majority of their messaging activities are not so sensitive that they feel the need to sacrifice those things for mandatory E2EE. Call that shortsighted if you like, but it's far more common than this "encryption or bust" mindset around here.

If signal or some messaging platform could find a way to be E2EE capable all the time, with all the same usability and design as telegram, without unnecessary restrictions on users, and without it being a completely walled off garden from which your data can never be self-extracted, it would win this argument.

Same goes for things like Tutanota and a lot of these other data prisons that are cropping up which create privacy through taking away user agency.

Until then users will pick what they want for their own needs. Telegram met those needs for many.

Why are you assuming tech savy people care primarily about end-to-end encryption?

As someone who has hated something like 85% of all recent app redesigns with their wasted screen space and needlessly floating elements, Thunderbird's is one of the few that I actually kinda like, after I took a few minutes to tweak it to my liking.

That said, I completely understand the impulse. I do this a lot nowadays.

Something to keep in mind is authentication methods if you're using Thunderbird for certain accounts. Like just this year Microsoft broke QAuth functionality with Thunderbird, and I'm pretty sure you can't set up QAuth2 on Thunderbird 78 (at least without an addon).

You can probably count on that sort of thing happening more and more.

>Will Reddit as a business be better off without these users? Also maybe. There's definitely a case to be made that the community would benefit from more casual participation minus power tripping and over moderation from the top 0.01%.

Casual participation doesn't get the job done.

The idea that reddit would benefit without these users is just a complete misunderstanding of what reddit is and what creates reddit's value.

Google destroyed its own search engine, it would do the same to Reddit.

The fundamental problem is that reddit's primary strength, it's biggest point of value, is antithetical to the type of monetization that Google would implement.

I love that the CEO calls the users voicing their displeasure "noise".

When those users voice opinions on other things, it's called content. When those users voice their opinions against reddit, it's noise.

Hoffman continues to display a fundamental misunderstanding of what Reddit is.

The very people that give your platform its value are revolting against you, and you think it's noise.

What's your product? What do you create? In what way will Reddit thrive only with what you put into it? Where do you think the content you lace your ads between comes from?