mutant_zz

Mastodon is pretty different to its competitors. It looks similar to Twitter / Bluesky, but the way the social network functions is completely different.

It's designed to be anti-infuencer... One of the things I hate about most social media platforms is a few people get all the attention. There are a few reasons for this, but it's not really based on merit.

I think a lot of people joined Mastodon wanting a Twitter clone. It's obviously not and Bluesky is, so people moved there. The approach Mastodon takes is far from perfect, and may not work out in the long run. But it seems like it's worth at least trying something different.

OP is obviously very eco-concious.. Instead of using an LLM to generate crap (and burn half the Amazon while doing it) they just recycled

The thing is even if AI could do all that (which is doubtful in my life time), you would still need someone to prompt it with something interesting. And CEO types have never had an interesting idea in their lives

I agree the execution of the end of GoT was bad (i.e. the problems weren't just the issue of everything needing to come to a head). There were a lot of different complaints about how GoT ended, but I definitely saw a lot about how it was all just battles in the last season and no nuance. I think that was always going to be hard to avoid given how GRRM had set up the main plot. And I think he will find it hard to avoid when writing the last 2 books, which could be part of the reason he doesn't want to do it.

I always felt that one of the main problems with GoT/ASOIAF was that it was a nuanced, political fantasy with top class world-building, but the overarching plot was pushing everyone towards a massive final confrontation (or 2 really). There was not really a good way to resolve the confrontation without a massive battle (or 2). So the ending was always going to have to move away from what made the series interesting/successful (book and TV), i.e. plot, characters, intrigue, shades of grey.

There were other problems as well, but that was something baked into the whole series by GRRM, and I'm not sure he can really find a way to do it differently. He might come up with a different outcome of the final confrontations, but it still has to be done with epic battles.

Sadly, the lock-in is pretty extreme... as is user inertia. Office 365 has made the problem worse as well, even if you have something like OnlyOffice that does a good job of compatibility with Office, it can't sync with OneDrive.

If you collaborate with non-technical people, they will expect you to work in Office formats, and won't even entertain discussion of any alternative.

Yeah, this is one of the many things that annoys me about AI discourse.

"We can use it to solve climate change!"

We already technically know how to solve climate change, but politics makes doing that impossible.

And, no, AI can't "fix" politics. We're going to have to figure that out by ourselves.

Absolutely, and a big part of being a good scientist is acknowledging that subjectivity (and well as the degree of uncertainty in all our knowledge). In social science, subjectivity is baked in... there's no way to avoid it, no matter how hard you try.

That's not to say subjectivity means science can't do anything useful in these areas. Most of the problems with subjectivity come from pretending something is objective when it's not.

Extremely subjective creatures, many of which believe they're always right (including many "scientists").

But yeah, you're right, the reality is somewhere between the two extremes of the meme. Although we might also want to have a conversation about what "pure objectivity and truth" means.

We're not in a movie. Climate change isn't going be solved by one brilliant scientist. It's not even a scientific/technology problem at this point, it's a political one.

It's all bullshit marketing hype until we actually see it. There's no reason to believe AI will advance better than linearly in the next 5-10 years.