We seem to be finding our way into echo chambers just fine without algorithms or big tech as well.

I believe that, in reality, wolves domesticated themselves. They started hanging around humans because it was a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Dogs and wolves are the same specie - just a different subspecie. A Chihuahua could breed with a wolf.

I’m not 100% sure but I don’t see why not if that’s the name you gave them when registering as a customer. They all read in my ID as well.

Does this help?

You’re not hoping anything, you’re just trying to look clever by pretending to be worried about phrasing no one actually misunderstood.

Concern trolling / weaponized empathy - Pretending to care as a disguise for judgment or hostility.

I have 3 first names and I’m legally allowed to use any of them.

Ironically, I had to use AI to figure out what this is supposed to mean.

Here’s the intended meaning:

The author is critiquing the misapplication of AI—specifically, the way people adopt a flashy new tool (AI, in this case) and start using it for everything, even when it’s not the right tool for the job.

Hammers vs. screwdrivers: A hammer is great for nails, but terrible for screws. If people start hammering screws just because hammers are faster and cheaper, they’re clearly missing the point of why screws exist and what screwdrivers are for.

Applied to AI: People are now using large language models (like ChatGPT) or generative AI for tasks they were never meant to do—data analysis, logical reasoning, legal interpretation, even mission-critical decision-making—just because it’s easy, fast, and feels impressive.

So the post is a cautionary parable: just because a tool is powerful or trendy (like generative AI), doesn’t mean it’s suited to every task. And blindly replacing well-understood, purpose-built tools (like rule-based systems, structured code, or human experts) with something flashy but poorly matched is a mistake.

It’s not anti-AI—it’s anti-overuse or misuse of AI. And the tone suggests the writer thinks that’s already happening.

A self-aware or conscious AI system is most likely also generally intelligent - but general intelligence itself doesn’t imply consciousness. It’s likely that consciousness would come along with it, but it doesn’t have to. An unconscious AGI is a perfectly coherent concept.

What do you not agree with the graph?

No I didn’t.

The whole ETF thing is partly a grift

Are you mixing up ESG and ETF by any chance?

It means Artificial General intelligence and the term has been around for almost three decades.

The term AGI was first used in 1997 by Mark Avrum Gubrud in an article named ‘Nanotechnology and international security’

By advanced artificial general intelligence, I mean AI systems that rival or surpass the human brain in complexity and speed, that can acquire, manipulate and reason with general knowledge, and that are usable in essentially any phase of industrial or military operations where a human intelligence would otherwise be needed. Such systems may be modeled on the human brain, but they do not necessarily have to be, and they do not have to be “conscious” or possess any other competence that is not strictly relevant to their application. What matters is that such systems can be used to replace human brains in tasks ranging from organizing and running a mine or a factory to piloting an airplane, analyzing intelligence data or planning a battle.___

If you have a better term, what is it?

Large Language Model.

AI is a parent category and AGI and LLM are subcategories of it. Just because AGI and LLM couldn’t be more different, it doesn’t mean they’re not AI.

Why? We already have a specific subcategory for it: Large Language Model. Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence aren’t synonymous. Just because LLMs aren’t generally intelligent doesn’t mean they’re not AI. That’s like saying we should stop calling strawberries “plants” and start calling them “fake candy” instead. Call them whatever you want, they’re still plants.

Independent of what anyone is actually saying, the mere fact that someone is commenting on social media at all makes it highly likely they’re one of the people the article is talking about. As the saying goes, a tiny number of users produce nearly all the content. Most people don’t post comments online. The average person doesn’t. So if someone does, that alone already marks them as unusual in some way.

This becomes especially obvious on Lemmy, where you can see people’s moderation history - and it takes only a few seconds to notice how many users are spouting mean, violent, and extremist views. You might not see those views as extreme because this is an echo chamber and you probably agree with them, but they’re extreme nonetheless when compared to what the average person would say.

Nobody ever thinks of themselves as the problem - we all have some story about how our behavior is justified and how those people over there are the real issue. Nah, you’re probably part of the issue as well. I am too.

And what does that have to do with anything? Sweden’s population has grown from 8 million in the '70s to 10.5 million today. That’s 2.5 million more people - and 1.9 million of them are immigrants. The number of immigrants per capita has increased significantly since the '70s, not decreased. It has gone from 3.7% of the total population to 20.8%.

According to wikipedia their support was at around 4% in the 90’s, 5.7% in 2010, 17.5% in 2018 and 20% in 2022.

There was a peak in immigration in the '70s, but that was still only half of what it was in 2015. I doubt it’s just a coincidence that their support seems to correlate pretty neatly with the number of immigrants. I never claimed that it’s the gang violence driving the increased support - it’s the immigration itself. The rise in violence just makes it easier for them to say “I told you so.”

I would not eat nor sleep if it wasn’t mandatory. I consider both chores and waste of time.