Sorry for the shit image quality but here's another ad by the same company for a better idea of it

Flew over the may day rally in San Francisco.

They're dabbing on us

/- Matt christman

all 78 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 131 points 6 months ago (17 children)

Flown in a plane by a human.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Can't speak for this specific instance of course, but in the UK you occasionally get people flying messages over football ⚽ grounds or whatever, and I have read more than once that the company doing the flying don't actually know what message they are pulling - they just get the packaged up message and fly it where the customer asks them to.

    Don't know if that's true, though and it's arguable whether that absolves them completely of responsibility for the message being shown.

    EDIT - that being said, the first example I found contradicts me - here, the message was known by everyone, including the pilot!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26783751

    EDIT 2 - a particularly nasty example here, where someone mentions banners not being checked. They definitely should have been.

    https://news.sky.com/story/outraged-airport-bans-banner-flights-after-white-lives-matter-burnley-stunt-12013293

    "Due to the nature of the activity, banners are not checked before take-off and the content is at the operator's discretion."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    I mean they use autopilot for most of the flight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    Uhh yeah, almost all planes have an autopilot system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 6 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

    Since when is that a requirement? Other types exist.

    You can use linkages and mechanics in automation too, not just fluids, pneumatics as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 6 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (7 children)

    Modern…? Why do you think it’s complex?

    They’ve been around since 1912.

    What’s this about economic sense? It’s to make pilots jobs easier and allow longer flights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    For much of the mid-to-late 20th century, Cessna was one of the highest-volume and most diverse producers of general aviation aircraft in the world.

    Go read something.

    Even Hondas have backup cameras and other driver conveniences. What does any of what you said have to do with autopilot?

    And an autopilot can be as simple as trim control, if you think it’s only a total driving system, that’s on you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

    No. You manually make a turn, set autopilot to go straight and level, then turn when needed, then Set autopilot again. Repeat.

    I don’t even think modern autopilots are capable of doing what you’re suggesting here. What gives you this idea?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    The pilot makes adjustment, most of the flight is done automatically.

    It’s like farmers equipment, there’s still a driver even though he can nod off and nothing will go wrong. And if it does, alarms go off.

    And how complex is complex? They can make prescribed turns and adjustments, but not what you are suggesting. Got a link or something? And funnily enough, those would be electronic systems. Not the wholly hydraulic like you were originally talking about.

    Do you have a point you want to stick to? Or you just throwing whatever comes to your mind out? Maybe google some of this first? It’s all readily available online.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    So you just make up an entirely fake system and argue that’s how stuff works in real life?

    That’s not how people have conversations dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Pardon?

    Just because you incorrectly assumed that an autopilot gives full autonomous control doesn’t mean the other user moved any goalposts.

    Also,Cessna has autopilot, this could have been easily verified by you by doing a few seconds of research.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Where? The original comment specified most. So it sounds like they understand an operator still does turns and other maneuvers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    - as larger planes are capable of doing

    How many time are you going to repeat that and asked for a source before you realize that’s not actually a thing…?

    To quote you, “that makes no economic sense”, it’s also an option, it’s not on every single aircraft. The link I provided provides basically anything g yot could ever want to know about autopilot, but you’re never gonna read it, since you don’t want to learn, you just want people to listen.

    You just love making shit up and pretending it’s reality eh?

    Basic auto pilots are common and are like cruise control, on almost every plane, what you’re imagining doesn’t exist, and would only be installed on very few select planes.

    Give your head a shake dude. Like seriously do it and quite hard too.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    Still isn’t a human, the distinction is irrelevant.

    A computer or a set of instructions is handling it, instead of a human, saying it’s Ai or not instead is missing the entire point.

    You are saying one’s okay, but not the other? How would they be different?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 114 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    This company is known for this. To clarify, I mean known for making deliberately inflammatory ads, then showing them as obtrusively or carelessly as possible, because it gets people to post about it.

    The only reason their company got popular in the first place was when they put these ads everywhere to piss people off and generate engagement.

    https://startupsmagazine.co.uk/article-clickbait-stop-hiring-humans-marketing-campaign-made-artisan-go-viral

    "The goal of the campaign was always to rage bait"

    This guerrilla marketing approach, combined with traditional media coverage and tactics, led to significant success. Artisan saw a remarkable +197% growth in brand search traffic, quickly establishing itself as the most well-known AI employee creator.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago

    Oh yeah, rage sells even better than pornography.

    Meta and Google etc realised this years ago already and tuned their algorithms for this. Get people enraged, they'll scroll more and see more ads, more revenue! It'll enrage people, divide people, get them to vote for the worst candidates, like Trump.

    Tech companies have ruined and continue to ruin the world and right bros are full on aiming to end it for all of us so that they can live in some utopia whole the rest of us are dead or suffering

    Sounds super conspiratorial? Thiel, Musk, as a few good examples

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    I am irreplacable. I'd like to see AI drink 12 beers and disappoint my girlfriend sexually.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    Just because AI can't do that doesn't mean I couldn't replace you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Fair point. But can you spend 4 hours not getting sound to work on a Linux distro?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I've spent my whole life doing that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I seem to have met my match. We are both telepathetic, it seems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Ragebait. It'll sell like hot cakes.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    And I'm falling for it. Promoting such thing is outrageous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago
    [–] 16 points 6 months ago

    AI can't do your job, but some saleman will convince your idiot boss that it can.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    how much does a lazer cost?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    All right. But AI is gonna have a tough time expressing my fox terrior's anal glands!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    I see a lot of ads for ai slop on the subway and I refuse to engage with them. I don't look them up. Fuck 'em.

    Sometimes people vandalize them and if I saw someone doing so, I don't know what you're talking about.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    Why would you hire humans when you can spend a lot of money on a totally incompetent, yet incredibly arrogant chatbot instead?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    Well, the goal was always to turn the universe into a dead soup that a handful of sick fucks play god in.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago
    [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    If that plane has a human pilot...

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Flew over the may day rally in San Francisco.

    Don't take the bait.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago
    [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Whoever thought of this should have to breath solely from the exhaust port of a data center.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (10 children)

    At least they are finally saying it out loud - AI and Automation is here to totally replace human workers. None of this "Your job won't be replaced by AI, it will be replaced by someone who knows AI," because that ONE person who knows AI is going to replace THOUSANDS of jobs.

    I've been saying since before Covid that unregulated AI is going to cause a permanent double-digit unemployment rate of 20%, 30%, 40%, very possibly higher, and I've been savaged for it. Yet last night, ABC reported that within 10 years, there will be 170,000 autonomous trucks on the road. That's 170,000 permanently unemployed truck drivers. What are they going to do make an alternative living and match that income? Uber says on their website that they intend to replace their fleet with autonomous cars, and has a partnership with Waymo, with a plan to roll out on Atlanta soon. That's been a job that LOTS of unemployed, or underemployed people can do, and now that's going away.

    And it's just the start. I just read how the tech leaders in SF are quietly worrying about the giant looming unemployment class that AI is going to produce. It's already happening with GPT-1, what's it going to be like when it's evolved to GPT-7, and it can do most jobs better than humans?

    ‘Catastrophe in the making,’ tech expert warns about AI

    After replacing half his workforce with AI, the Salesforce CEO brought in an Elon Robot to stagger around the office and be less helpful than a toddler, then:

    Salesforce’s CEO gave the robot a glowing review. “Elon’s Tesla Optimus is here! Dawn of the physical Agentforce revolution, tackling human work for $200K–$500K. Productivity game-changer!” he wrote on X.

    He's so GIDDY about his dumb robot, that he can't hide his glee in replacing every single disgusting human who works for him.

    Tech experts are finally voicing extreme worry about what our country will look like when there are millions of permanently unemployed people, and a government who treats them like it's their fault. The government should already be discussing this issue, and they simply won't. AI policy for BOTH parties right now is to do absolutely NOTHING. Don't even hint at any kind of regulatory policies, job protections, robot taxes, UBI, etc. And that includes DEMOCRATS.

    And why are they worried? Because hungry, hopeless people will do seriously desperate things for their children, and if they band together, every single rich person will die a gruesome death. And there are a lot of rich people in Silicon valley, and beyond. When the floodgates finally open, there will be no stopping it.

    The question is: How will The Government handle the excess unemployed workers? Will they have UBI, and encourage them to create innovative products and businesses? Will they create great great art? Will they recognize that by giving people a satisfying life it makes a safer America for everyone?

    Or will they just decide that they want to keep those profits for themselves, and they don't want to pay for those increasingly dangerous people, and eliminate them?

    Which party will choose which strategy?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (9 children)

    I know what Republicans will do. They will send AI robot armies marching through every city to just start massacring humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (7 children)

    Oh, yeah, Slaughterbots are on the way, count on it.

    Here's the strategy: Don't kill the Slaughterbots, that will be very difficult, and they could be valuable weapons for us.

    No, save the Slaughterbots, and kill their owners, take over their corporations, and take control of the Slaughterbots. Then turn them on the wealthy. Force them to live at sea on their Mega Yachts, and track them down one-by-one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    slaughterdrone vs a soldering iron and a multimeter alongside a laptop

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    Nah, they'll likely have some kind of remote-activated self-destruct feature that fries them to prevent us from using them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments