So we should not own pets, because the real polluters (companies) are lobbying to keep polluting? What bothers me so much about this idea of individual responsibility is that we get blamed for a choice we couldn't possibly make. It is up to the people in power to start making change, and it is important that people vote and educate themselves, but IMO this idea of individual responsibility for societal problems like climate change is ridiculous and only leads to inaction! We need to hold companies accountable, and we need to hold governments accountable. Own a dog, enjoy your life!
There's multiple vegan brands for dogs and cats feed. If it looks "unnatural" I suggest some reflexions:
- Most kibble's ingredients are not naturals
- Most of the kibble's flesh comes from a non-natural production
- Your pet health (and your own health) require some "nutrients" instead of "food types"
Agree 100% societal decisions are more important than individual ones. However the choice in question could be made as it's not doing (pet ownership). Don't take it personal, OP is not telling you what to do or blaming anyone but instead share some data. As you said: enjoy your life :)
PS: price-wise they tends to be in the premium range. If your cat already has allergies and special kibbles for that, vegan kibbles are in the same price range and are particularly good for that condition.
> If you have data that supports this assertion, show it.
Aside personal anecdotic evidences of cats thriving after +10 years of vegetal feed, here's some:
> Considering these results overall, cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than cats fed meat-based diets. This trend was clear and consistent. These results largely concur with previous, similar studies
> In most cases differences between dietary groups were not statistically significant
I admit that's not much, but If you think about it there's no reason a carnivore may not live healthy if provided the right nutrients, whatever the sources. Those nutrients are already well studied -especially for one of the two most common pet- and generously added in kibble because the base is often poorly balanced.
100% agreed, especially that last line. What I do not understand is why so many people are entirely okay with this change. I'm not interested in working with LLM's and after having been forced to work with LLM's at my current job, I can pretty confidently say that this will not end well for most of these companies. The people in charge pushing for this new tech do not understand the rammifications, nor do they understand the risk they are exposing themselves too. My boss expects more and more productivity with each passing day, while questioning why I'm not using as many tokens each week as he does. The software quality has gone down the drain, and it's beyond tiring that I have to pretend that my boss is just as competent at coding with his slop machine as I am after spending the last decade learning how to code, both as a hobby and for work.
It is upsetting to see our work stolen and our livelihoods threatened by a group of (mostly) incompetent, arrogant assholes who are convinced that the "computer that lies" is somehow a better programmer than the programmers it stole knowledge from. I've already started looking for a way out of this industry, and I'm genuinely worried for the fall-out this will have for the tech industry and the economy as a whole.
No one knows the ramifications. They won't be known for many years. That's the way software has always worked. No one knew the ramifications of the internet.
My suspicion is that the people "ok" with this are mostly doing so because they want in on the ride. IE, they see $$$ and they think that they should align themselves to where the money is, especially by espousing their religious faith publicly. I think some people want investment, or a big paid lab job, and so countering the narrative is against that goal. I get it, but I think it's also very annoying and dishonest. Personally I feel nervous being an AI skeptic because it feels like it could have consequences for me, but I also feel like, life isn't worth living if you don't have a spine and I can't get completely on board with all this stuff when I see all the negatives clearly. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a use, but, the current situation and discourse is extremely frustrating.
1.putting the "mostly" before "incompetent and arrogant asshole" really does nothing. you still called some undefined group of people assholes... i think that's generally uncalled for here on HN.
2.computer that lies might very well be a better programmer. I assume by better you mean it profuces correct and maintainable code, but there are a million ways to cut that cake in particular and i assume you are ignoring most other dimensions.
3. i tought myself coding for 10 years and then switched to professional work 5 years ago. it feels as if this was stolen from us. But its not - we never had any right to own and control this. times are changing, and while you might think you and all other devs have a moral high ground and can pop a can of beer and cheer anytime one of these supposed assholes messes up and would have been better off with a real programmer like yourself, you can do so from whatever new position you will find yourself in. Some part of what we call intelligence is "solved" and that leaves you with percieved morals and broken expectations - nothing more if you don't try to make something out of it. and i write thisw as much for you as i write it for myself to realize.
Yeah you're right, it IS entirely fair to suddenly and quickly push the group that built your industry out of the industry. They should all just find new jobs, because that's very easy and simple. Thankfully we have bright minds like you to replace the talent lost, because with AI you can truly do anything your heart desires!
Obvious sarcasm aside, these LLMs have been trained (without consent!) on our hard work, on our passion. People have been writing code for years, and many have open-sourced their projects to share their knowledge, to better the world, to provide free solutions to problems. All that hard work, all that effort, has been stolen and used to create a machine that replaces us. And when we complain that quality goes down, that work is no longer enjoyable, that we don't actually see huge noticable productivity improvements across the board, bright minds like you tell us "lol just quit man fuck you". Do you not feel bad that you are actively destroying the livelihood of the very people that made your slop machine viable to build?
Making your code open source was consenting to have people (and AIs) read it and learn from it. As an open source developer myself, I always understood that.
I consented to PEOPLE reading it. How could I have predicted that AI would take off so rapidly and get trained on my repos? How could I have predicted that AI would be trained on code without a license attached, or on code with strict licenses attached that do not allow for such use? A silly response if you ask me
Saying that you can't copy something is different from saying that it is illegal to read it. For example, it is legal for me to read Ray Bradbury's book, "Fahrenheit 451" when I check it out from the library. It is not legal for me to copy the book. This is why it's called "copyright" and not "readright".
So then the question becomes what "copying" means. There is an extensive body of legal precedent on this matter, and it mostly all points to "transformative uses" being exempt from copyright. For example, if I count the number of words in Fahrenheit 451, that number is not copyrighted. If I reproduce just a sentence, or maybe even a paragraph, that also doesn't count. But at a certain threshold, once I've reproduced enough of the book verbatim, I have violated copyright. Training an LLM is also a transformative use which means that it is simply not covered by copyright.
The field of ML is probably older than your parents and IP law doesn't grant people immunity from it (or any other form of data analysis for that matter). If a person can read it, so can AI.
I think you missed the entire point of this discussion, but you also have a very gross view of the world!
> Somehow purists think there's something wrong with the process of that. I say there's something wrong with them, perhaps on the spectrum of OCD.
Are you really saying it is a sign of serious mental illness because programmers want to enjoy their craft? You do realize our entire industry exists because of the passion of programmers years prior, right? I genuinely think you should be ashamed of what you wrote here.
I think you misunderstand. The entire industry exists because of the passion of engineers that program, not just programmers. And i specifically called out 'purists' for a reason, and yes I do believe OCD and perfectionism is a component. It would help if you read my comment critically rather than purely adversarily.
why would you want to filter these people out? surely those that consider programming more than just a "means to an end" are going to be much more valuable employees, consider they are much more likely to be skilled at their craft? im genuinely interested in why you'd want to filter these people out!
I want to find people who have already had all their passions and emotions stamped out by the endless grind already, so that they will tell an AI to do what I tell them for 996 without complaint.
These people who "care" about things just get in the way and want time off and such.
