I don't mind it at all for decorational images, but in this case I would mind. I suppose I would mind the inaccuracy, the worry that the creatures might not look exactly like the real world ones look.
Not that it actually matters but if those images were generated it would feel pointless to me, even if I can't tell the difference.
It can matter to you without it being a grand philosophical, ethical or commercial concern.
That's where I'm at with this stuff, and I think I am in good company.
The image represents a facsimile of seeing the real world with my own eyes, which an AI image does not. That is important to me in this context, that of learning about the real world by literally observing it.
> Not that it actually matters but if those images were generated it would feel pointless to me
I also very much felt like it doesn't really matter, perhaps too much and without considering other potential points of view, that's why the "plenty of worries" seemed so strange to me. How could you experience plenty of worry over an internet site being disingenuous about facts or images? You'd be freaking out all the time. But I can see now that it could be serious for some people in this case.
Yes please, but do it in a way where the government doesn't know what services am I using and the service doesn't know who I am beyond being a unique non-registered human.
I'm not sure this is possible in EU and US. And I'm sure it is not possible worldwide.
As always when this pops up, I'm asking what options are there to prove that a user is human that are more privacy friendly (and as the author puts it, less creepy).
Because the problem World claims to try to solve is real.
I’m glad you asked. I’m working in a competing product named Globe that will offer twice the service at half the cost with a greater emphasis on security and privacy than Sam Altman ever could.
All you need to do is send me your biometrics, and if you don’t feel like doing that willingly I’ll use the billions of dollars of capital that my friends and I have to coerce you into doing so because I’ll leave you with no other choice.
The problem we at Globe are trying to solve is real and necessary to solve.
People who oppose it are obviously the problem, not me and the existence of a problem is sufficient reason for me to coerce people into accepting my solution without government oversight because my friends have been diligently working hard to reduce the ability of governments around the world to do so.
Imagine A system where there's a vending machine outside City Hall, you spend $X on a charity for choice, and you get a one-time, anonymous token. You can "spend" it with a forum to indicate "this is probably a person or close enough to it."
Misuse of the system could be curbed by making it so that the status of a token cannot be tested non-destructively.
I like the idea, but I'm not sure it solves the problem enough. I'm not convinced that there is an $X where the service is not too cost prohibitive for humans and at the same time cost prohibitive enough to discourage bots.
In the specific case of Tinder you might as well just make Tinder paid and skip all of this.
There's a rather rich spectrum of solutions, and too-often often the debate becomes a binary of comprehensively-identified versus uncontrolled-anonymity". By clarifying our requirements, we can get better mixes of cheapness and privacy.
For the average web-forum, you don't really need to know that an account is a human, let alone a unique human. It's enough to know that whatever is on the other end (A) likely cares about what happens to the account if it doesn't follow rules and (B) probably isn't running a hundred sockpuppets, or is at least taking a risk doing so.
I think a key part of the idea is that it's a vending machine you'd have to physically interact with and not an online service. That would filter out bots pretty effectively.
Yubikey type device issued by an authority trusted by the website owner. Same as we have it now with browsers and SSL certificates.
We can even have a key issued by the government as a digital ID card. They can be used to check: is over 18, is real person, for digital signature, etc.
Yes, I agree, but as one of the other comments say, they are not able to read your mind. So even if the structure and style is not clear, you must be able to express what you want.
Certainly. I just think "expressing thoughts in words clearly" might in the end turn out to be something different than what we, humans consider clear.
For example long unstructured rambling might turn out to be a non-issue, while as human I would rank such message low no matter how good it is in other informational aspects.
That's true. I feed Codex some very long .md files that I use as a kind of work diary and that are pain to use into something very much usable. Writing your thoughts is important even if done carelessly.
Please explain to me which part they are automating.
A person scans the goods. A person handles keying in codes when necessary. A person tells the system the scanning is done and to accept payment. A person bags the groceries.
I guess if you’re paying cash it automates taking the money slightly more than the standard cash register does.
Mine have lower wait times because people with lots of stuff can’t fit that shit on the tiny scale-tables, and likely don’t feel like doing all that work themselves, so they go to the regular checkout line (there is usually only one, maybe two if it’s busy), plus the five or six stations share a line so it feels faster.
The difference is that where I live stores that used to have, say, 10 counters out of which maybe 6 were open on average now have 4 human counters and 20 self-checkout counters.
So for me it is in effect automating the part where I need to wait in a queue. We should surely keep some human counters for accessibility reasons, but I as a person able to scan my groceries in the 3 minutes it takes I'm perfectly happy to do just that.
By the way there are also RFID counters where you just dump your goods in a bin and it scans everything automatically. Wouldn't solve the problem with items priced by weight, but makes the rest significantly easier.
Retail business profit margins have always been low single digit percentages. More staff can only mean higher prices. I'll gladly scan my own stuff to have lower prices and be able to get out quicker.
> Retail business profit margins have always been low single digit percentages.
And yet overall profits remain high - they’re high-volume low margin businesses.
> More staff can only mean higher prices.
When you’re talking about massive chains that are prioritizing profits, usually on behalf of shareholders, that is true. For smaller businesses, coops, or even gov run grocery stores - things that aren’t as focussed on rates of return for investors - it can just mean less profits for the owners.
> I'll gladly scan my own stuff to have lower prices and be able to get out quicker.
It hasn’t matched my experience that prices fell as self checkouts were installed. I think profits went up, prices didn’t come down. Maybe the “quicker” bit… except only if I have just a handful of items.
> And yet overall profits remain high - they’re high-volume low margin businesses.
Why would they not be high? The purchasing power of the currency goes down day after day. If nominal profits are not hitting highs day after day, then you are losing purchasing power.
> It hasn’t matched my experience that prices fell as self checkouts were installed. I think profits went up, prices didn’t come down.
Profit margin is the relevant metric to look at for this context. It is possible prices would have gone up 10% instead of 5% if not for the automation. It is also possible the automation fails to reduce costs.
There are no guarantees in life, just bets that may or may not pan out. Long term trends will the story, but for now, the profit margins make me happy that I don’t invest in grocery stores.
You're blaming the store, which I agree with. My question was whether you could blame the GP, or the consumer in general. They have little control over how much the staff of their grocery store is being paid.
People have different preferences. What's to be confused about that?
I share their preference. The cashier saves me no real amount of work. The difference between putting my groceries on a conveyor belt and having a cashier scan them, and me myself dragging my groceries past a scanner, is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. The amount of work I perform is functionally the same. The biggest difference is in the amount of time I spend, where the win clearly goes to the self-checkout, since then I can bag my groceries at the same time as I scan them, and there's more self-checkouts available than normal ones, meaning I spend less time queuing if I use those.
Some places have more automated steps - Uniqlo has bins where you just toss in all your clothes and it detects it via RFID tags in the price tags and rings up a total.
It looks good, but since the design is becoming so ubiquitous in the small personal projects space (elsewhere as well, but I think it is most noticeable here) it is also boring.
I've vibecoded a few websites for my own use that look very similar to this. If I designed them myself, I would (in those cases) not put up enough effort so they would be much less refined, but also less boring?
edit: The expand/collapse behaviour of the table cells is quite strange. So the design is not that okay, afterall.
reply