Thanks for sharing!

As far as I know, there is no such list (yet).

What should be done:
Escalate it to the people responsible for IT administration & security in your company or institution. They’ll deal with it.

But the default step if you suspect of being infected is not to use the device at all until you got a green light for it from the security/admin folks. Power down, disconnect from any networks, either via physical cables or wireless, unplug external storage devices and wait for further info.

TL;DR:
The misuse of technology in capitalism threatens jobs and financial stability. Affordable robots and AI could either enhance our lives or lead to unemployment and misery. Proposals like an automation tax could fund education or basic income. We need good legislation to ensure technology benefits everyone, not just profits. Recent steps like Europe’s AI act offer a little hope, but a lot more political action is urgently needed.

Long Version:
From my perspective, the core of the problem is not the technology, but the reckless way we use it in our capitalistic system. Or let’s say, let it be used.

For example, a light load robotic industrial arm costs merely 1k to 5k € nowadays. The software for it is cheap as well.
What the business owners and managers see, is not an awesome new invention which could help to propel humanity into the future of a robotic utopia, but cheap labour force, aiding them to cut jobs in order to maximize their profit margin as human labour is expensive.

I am sure AI and robots are our future, one way or another, whether we want it or not.
But I would like to see a future where AI and robots help us to increase our quality of life, instead of making us unemployed and endagering our financial survival.

There are various ideas how this could be achieved. I don’t intend to go way too in-depth here, so just as an example:
an automation tax: estimate to which amount a business can be automated and then demand a tax proportional to how much the business was automated. Such a tax could then be used to finance higher education for people or a universal basic income. Maybe at first just an income for those who can’t get a decent job due to automation.

We had similar developments as those we see now with virtually all technological advances, where human labour was replaced by more and more clever machines. Jobs where lost due to that but it could still be seen as a good thing in general.

An important difference is the level of required skills though. Someone who’s job it was to go around a street and light gas lanterns every day, extinguishing them some time afterwards, was replaced by electric light grids. A switchboard operator at a telephone company, who connected people manually, got replaced by clever hardware. And so on. Those people didn’t require high skills for their job though. They had it a bit easier to find another one.

This becomes increasingly difficult as AI and technology in general advances. Recently we see how robots and AI are capabable of tasks where higher skills are necessary. And it’s probable that this trend will incresingly continue. At some point, we will have AI developing new and better AI. An explosion of artificial intelligence can then be expected.

It’s less a problem as long as people have job prospects in higher skilled work levels. But that will, for a while at least, not be the case. This has different reasons:

As I see it, we have a “work pyramid”, where the levels of the pyramid represent the required skills and the width of the pyramid levels represent the amount of available jobs. In other words, there is a way higher demand for low skilled work than for high skilled work. (BTW, what I mean by work skill is the level of specialisation and proficiency, often connected to more intense and long training and education.)

As recent developments in AI now slowly creep into higher and higher levels, people may start investing in their own education in order to even get a job. But higher skilled work is less available making it increasingly tight and problematic to get one.

There may of course also be an effect observable where new jobs are created by enabling more even higher skilled jobs due to the aid of AI, but I think this has limitations. On the one hand, the amount of jobs created that way might be insufficient. On the other hand, people might not want to or can’t get an education for that.

The latter needs to be emphasized from my perspective. There are a lot of people who simply don’t want to study for a decade in order to get a PhD in something so that they can get some highly specialised job. Some people like the more simple jobs, those requiring more manual than cognitive labour. And that’s totally fine. People should be happy and like the work they do.

Currently, not all people even have access to that kind of education. Be it due to limitations in available places at universities / colleges, or due to financial reasons or even due to physical or mental health reasons.

You may now understand, why I see that we are going to create more misery if we don’t change the way we handle such things.

I would like to see humanity in that robotic utopia. No one needs to work, as most work is done by AI and robots. But everyone can get a fair share and live a happy life however they would like to live it. They can work, take up some interest and pursue it, but no one needs to.

But currently, this is probably not going to happen. We need good legislation, need to create a system where advancements in AI and robotics can be made without driving people into financial ruin. We need to set those guarding rails which help to guide us towards such a robotic utopia.

That’s why I am advocating for putting this topic higher on political priority lists. Politics worldwide don’t have it even set on their agenda. They are missing crucial time frames. And I really hope they’ll wake up from that slumber and start working on it. I’ve got some hope. Europe recently passed their first AI act.
It’s a start.

Sincerely,

A roboticist working in AI and robot research.

Moderate drinking is not a problem.

From a health perspective, it certainly is.
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.

And it does assist with socializing

Which is a cultural thing. If people grow up seeing how alcohol is a social catalysator, they don’t learn that it’s perfectly possible to socialize without alcohol.

which seems like it would be beneficial for most people on here.

Idk, if that comes from a well-meant place, but it sounds kinda condescending.

The idea that people here are afraid of/resistant to drinking, yet will use cannabis and other materials seems very strange.

There are not just two kinds of people. From my experience those, who use cannabis or other drugs, are inclined towards alcohol use as well.

Socially or ethically, I think I know what you mean.

I am being pedantic now and say that it can even be bad socially and ethically as a consequence of that or as a consequence of health concerns.

There’s a loneliness epidemic and low alcohol consumption rates are a contributor to that

Are they? Sincere question, haven’t read a report or something like that on that topic.

Regarding the remaining part, I understand how you see that. Seems logical. However, I would claim that this is more of a problem in societies mindset itself and less one tied to alcohol consumption. If people are raised in a way that they learn how alcohol is necessary, and don’t learn other ways, if it’s even incorporated in the particular culture of a society, then it’s not surprising that those people have a hard time finding new friends.
There are plenty of counter examples, e.g., look at other cultures where alcohol is even forbidden or at least its consumption clearly discouraged. Even in western cultures there are plenty of people who found and prefer other ways. But sure, may of course not be the majority yet.

Regarding a loneliless epidemic, I guess there is also a lot more to it than alcohol consumption alone. For example I have picked up on smartphone usage / social media consumption as related on that. (Which is a very superficial statement now, I haven’t read up on that.)

Thanks for pointing it out. There is clearly room for a lot of error.

I think they meant other countries, which have liberty and democracy engraved to their core.

Also, please keep it civil. There was no need to be so condescending. If you’re unhappy with the answer, there are better ways to express this. :)

Or, you know, Russia could just get the fuck out of Ukraine and leve them in peace. Much better agreement imo.

How is it profitable?

I wonder whether it’s possible to fight wars without – ideally – having casaulties at all.

For example, sedating instead of killing. Afterwards prison camps or something like that. Admittedly, given the scale, it is financially and logistically a tremendous effort. But how much must a human life “be worth” in order to be spared?

There are other obvious issues like civil unrest, if the other party keeps killing soldiers of one’s own military.

Still, it’s better than to end lifes from my perspective. One side must be the bigger one.

We spend so much effort and resources into specialising how to kill each other. But we don’t use that resources for finding alternative ways.

If there are people who really want to kill each other, throw them together and leave the rest alone.

How is it a proxy war if it was russia which started it?

In case you are sincerely wondering:

It has become common to show sarcasm or mockery through that random capitalisation of letters in text.

It was originally popularised by the mocking spongebob meme but its use can be traced back even earlier, according to Wikipedia.

Please keep it civil. :) The discussion was fine so far. What made you react so angry?

There is lactose free cow water. Also, plant based milk doesn’t have lactose.

Which is cool

I disagree for health and a bunch of other reasons.

Alcohol isn’t that bad, obviously, if bad at all,

Depends on what you understand by “bad”. Regarding health, it certainly is.

No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

It is necessary to employ a method which enables the training procedure to distinguish copyrighted material. In the “dumbest” case, some humans will have to label it.

Just because you’ve edited a comment, doesn’t mean that this can be seen as “oh, this is under copyright now”.

I don’t say it’s technical impossible. To the contrary, it very much is possible. It’s just more work. This drives the development costs up and can give some form of satisfaction to angered ex-reddit users like me. However, those costs will be peanuts for giants like Google / Alphabet.

NYT is currently suing because of copyright infringiments.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html

it’s unclear that copyright has anything to say about AI training anyway

Although lawmakers worldwide have slept while AI advanced and therefore missed to make some important laws, they are catching up. Europe recently passed its first AI act. As far as I’ve seen it also states that companies must disclose a detailed summary of their training data.

https://www.ml6.eu/blogpost/ai-models-compliance-eu-ai-act

I think I have about 4000 comments on reddit. I’ve stopped using reddit last year in summer when they pushed their fucking API changes; have been on Lemmy since and never looked back. However, I still have the account, because sometimes I had really nice conversations, which I would like to look up once in a while, or to pick up something which I wanted to keep for another time, like a bookmark basically. I’m also one of the people who sometimes write really really much; walls of text as a product of a lot of effort I put in. It would be sad to see it all go away. Then again, fuck reddirt and it’s management.

Is there a tool to back up my comments (or also the corresponding threads)? After that I’ll gladly use the tool provided by luddite.