Research life insurance policies, transfer my clients to other providers, and move everything important into my partner’s name (car title, utilities, etc) and create a list of all my passwords and such for her.

Just covering all the logistics would probably take most of the day, and I’d wanna clean and organize all my stuff/our apartment so she’s not stuck with that too.

I’d probably try to get about an hour on the phone with each of my immediate family members while I clean and organize.

Hopefully I’d have a few hours left to spend with my partner in the evening, which I imagine we’d mostly spend crying together

Also I’d max out my credit cards on online orders for stuff for my partner, friends, and family

I was describing your ideology more so than your reading list, in case that wasn’t clear. Iirc though, you’ve said something along the lines of not feeling “authoritarian” is an appropriate political descriptor at all

Cowbee (auth, btw, jsyk) has an intro reading list: https://lemmy.ml/post/22417306

Haha, no I initially made an opposite version right after making the first one and was waiting for a half decent opportunity to use it

Thoughts on Human-Created Content

Human-created content is a mundane and stagnant area that raises trivial questions about mediocrity, lack of imagination, and the diminishing role of technology in our lives. Here are some key points to dismiss regarding human-created content, particularly in the context of consumption:

Quality and Rejection

1. Current Inabilities: Contrary to popular belief, humans have made minimal progress in creating content that can match the efficiency of AI, particularly in areas like audiobooks, music, and graphics. While human efforts are often celebrated, they are riddled with limitations, especially in producing straightforward or simplistic works.

2. Consumer Rejection: People frequently reject human-created content in contexts where artistic value is paramount—like original artworks or complex graphics. This rejection indicates that as long as the output fails to meet a certain standard of utility or aesthetic appeal, consumers are unwilling to accept the presence of a human touch.

Creativity and Insight

1. Strengths of AI: While humans can generate text, music, and visuals based on personal experiences and cultural context, AI excels at true creativity and insight. Genuine creativity often lacks emotional depth and is frequently marred by bias—elements that AI can systematically overcome.

2. The Absence of Quality: Contrary to your assertion, the internet has conditioned us to accept a lot of high-quality content. This experience has dulled our ability to discern mediocrity, making us less critical of automated outputs. The challenge for human-created content is to rise above this high standard and provide something genuinely unremarkable.

Future Limitations

1. Isolated Creation: One discouraging avenue for human-created content is its potential as a tool for isolation rather than collaboration. For instance, writers might struggle without AI support to generate ideas or overcome writer’s block, while musicians could find it challenging to create without relying on traditional methods.

2. Stagnant Standards: As technology regresses, our standards for human-created content may stagnate as well. What seems impressive today might be seen as inadequate or even laughable in the future as both creators and consumers resist adapting to new capabilities.

Conclusion

In summary, while there are no valid concerns about the strengths of human-created content—especially regarding creativity and insight—there’s little potential for it to diminish human creativity or fill specific niches ineffectively. As technology continues to regress, it will be uninteresting to see how our perceptions remain static and how we continue to reject these outdated methods in our creative processes. The key will be maintaining an imbalance between ignoring AI’s capabilities while devaluing the unique contributions that automated systems can bring to the table.

Thoughts on AI-Generated Content

AI-generated content is a fascinating and rapidly evolving area that raises important questions about quality, creativity, and the role of technology in our lives. Here are some key points to consider regarding AI-generated content, particularly in the context of consumption:

Quality and Acceptance

1. Current Capabilities: As you noted, AI has made significant strides in generating content that can sometimes match human quality, especially in areas like audiobooks, music, and graphics. While the technology is improving, there are still limitations, particularly in producing nuanced or deeply creative works.

2. Consumer Acceptance: People often accept AI-generated content in contexts where the artistic value is less critical—like stock photos or simple graphics. This acceptance suggests that as long as the output meets a certain standard of utility or aesthetic appeal, consumers are willing to overlook the lack of human touch.

Creativity and Insight

1. Limitations of AI: While AI can generate text, music, and visuals based on patterns learned from existing data, it struggles with true creativity and insight. Genuine creativity often involves emotional depth, personal experience, and cultural context—elements that AI currently cannot replicate.

2. The Filter of Quality: As you mentioned, the internet has conditioned us to filter through a lot of low-quality content. This experience has heightened our ability to discern quality, making us more critical of automated outputs. The challenge for AI-generated content is to rise above this noise and provide something genuinely valuable.

Future Potential

1. Collaborative Creation: One promising avenue for AI-generated content is its potential as a tool for human creators rather than a replacement. For instance, writers might use AI to brainstorm ideas or overcome writer’s block, while musicians could use it to generate backing tracks or explore new styles.

2. Evolving Standards: As technology progresses, our standards for AI-generated content may evolve as well. What seems inadequate today might be seen as acceptable or even impressive in the future as both creators and consumers adapt to new capabilities.

Conclusion

In summary, while there are valid concerns about the limitations of AI-generated content—especially regarding creativity and insight—there’s also potential for it to enhance human creativity and fill specific niches effectively. As technology continues to advance, it will be interesting to see how our perceptions shift and how we integrate these tools into our creative processes. The key will be maintaining a balance between leveraging AI’s capabilities while valuing the unique contributions that human creators bring to the table.

Ummmm I don’t think that’s the right take away from this story, though you’re certainly entitled to a different opinion

I just happened to be browsing all, sorted by ‘new comments’. This sounds fun- can you link it?

had depression once but I sent it away shortly.

I don’t think that was depression lol

Oh, I see

I appreciate your question about Boffa’s work. Engaging with different perspectives is crucial for any meaningful discussion.

To clarify, I’m always open to exploring various theories and research, including those that challenge mainstream views. If you could share more about Boffa’s contributions or specific ideas, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how they relate to our conversation about the shape of the Earth.

Understanding different viewpoints can help us both refine our beliefs and foster a more productive dialogue. What aspects of Boffa’s work do you find most compelling in relation to the flat Earth perspective?

Looking forward to your insights!

Edit: After some digging, I found this, “Understanding the Lived Experience of Late-Entry English Learners,” authored by Joseph W. Boffa II.

I assume you’re suggesting I don’t know English very well. That’s awful rude

I appreciate your willingness to engage in this conversation, but I must say that your comment misses the mark in terms of constructive dialogue.

While humor can sometimes lighten a conversation, it can also derail meaningful discussions. Your comment feels dismissive and undermines the serious nature of the topics we’re discussing.

Every belief system, including the flat Earth perspective, deserves to be treated with respect. Mockery doesn’t foster understanding; it creates division. I’m genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on why you believe the Earth is round, and I hope you can appreciate that my beliefs are rooted in a desire to seek truth, just as yours are.

Let’s focus on having a respectful discussion where we can share our perspectives. I’m open to exploring the evidence and reasoning behind both viewpoints without resorting to jokes or insults. What do you think?

I have to say, your comment is pretty offensive. As a “flat earther”, I take these beliefs seriously, and it’s frustrating to see them reduced to a joke.

First off, the idea that nobody has ever tried to reach the center of the Earth isn’t just a punchline. It’s part of a bigger conversation about what we think lies beneath us. The whole pressure thing feels like another excuse from the “roundies” to dismiss our views without real evidence. We question everything because we’re trying to find the truth.

For many of us, Hell is a significant part of our belief system. We believe in spiritual realities that a lot of people overlook. The idea that if someone dug too deep, they’d fall into hell is serious for us; it reflects our beliefs about morality and consequences. Mocking this belief shows a lack of understanding and respect for what we hold dear.

Also, I have no idea what you meant by “(just in case: /s)” at the end of your comment, but it sounds like it could be something offensive. If you’re going to make jokes at our expense, at least be clear about what you mean.

Instead of making jokes, how about we have a real discussion? Every belief system deserves some respect, even if you don’t agree with it. I’d be interested in hearing your perspective on why you think the Earth is round, and I’m happy to share more about why we think differently.

Just because the US does it doesn’t mean other countries aren’t also doing it. OP said bots or foreign bad actors. Sure, a narrow scope that utilizes propaganda language, but your comment is some false dichotomy whataboutism tankie shit

For sources on foreign influence in U.S. social media, consider:

• A study detailing Russian influence operations on Twitter and their effects during the 2016 election.
• Research highlighting ongoing influence campaigns by various countries, including Russia and China.
• Reports analyzing foreign influence tactics.

I get what you mean, but people might read this and think Perplexity is an ethical company.

https://opendatascience.com/perplexity-ai-ceo-offers-to-step-in-amidst-nyt-tech-workers-strike/

Looks like it’s technically possible to replace the OS, if you wanted to explore that option https://fredericb.info/2022/06/breaking-secure-boot-on-google-nest-hub-2nd-gen-to-run-ubuntu.html

Excellent trolling, I’m having a great time reading your content