Image Description: A digital meme divided into two main panels: a mathematical whiteboard explanation at the top and a reaction image at the bottom. Top Panel (The Whiteboard): Titled “P-ADIC FINANCE where p = profit.” It explains a fictional financial system using real advanced mathematics. Left text: “In this metric, a number’s size is how little profit divides it. The more profitable the crime, the closer its penalty sits to zero. String together ever-bigger crimes and the fines don’t blow up, they converge.” A sequence shows: “p, p^2, p^3, … arrow pointing to 0.” Right chart: A table titled “Crime, Profit, Fine, Fine Size in P-Adic Metric.” It lists crimes: Outsource pollution: Profit = p, Fine = $1M, P-adic size = 1/p (small). Fake the numbers: Profit = p^2, Fine = $10M, P-adic size = 1/p^2 (smaller). Fix the market: Profit = p^3, Fine = $100M, P-adic size = 1/p^3 (tinier). Ruin a country: Profit = p^4, Fine = $1B, P-adic size = 1/p^4 (minuscule). Repeat infinitely: Profit = p^n, Fine = p^n (lol), P-adic size = 1/p^n which approaches 0. Below the chart: A number line showing 0 on the far left (labeled “Where your fines live”) and numbers increasing to the right (labeled “Big in absolute world”). A final box states: “The true crime in a corporate environment is not choosing p.” Bottom Panel (The Reaction): A sepia-toned photograph of a group of wealthy white men in suits, including former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, laughing uproariously together at a gathering. Edited comic speech bubbles are assigned to them: One asks, “Why’d we even need lawyers?” Another laughs, “We just changed the metric lmfao.” A third says, “Fines are for poors.” A man in the foreground laughs, “Infinite money glitch found boys.” In the bottom right corner, a modern internet meme character (a crying, angry “Wojak” in a suit wearing a badge that reads “REGULATORS”) has a thought bubble that reads: “They took us for absolute fools.” Bottom Caption: Superimposed across the bottom in large, bold, white Impact font: “THEY TOOK US FOR ABSOLUTE FOOLS”—a pun on the word “absolute” referring to both being deeply tricked and the standard mathematical “absolute metric.”
That’s a lot of words, misused math, and slop just to say “if it’s punishable by a fine, it’s legal for a price, which isn’t even that high”.
I wonder if they at least used p-adic metric correctly, but I don’t feel like analyzing a slop meme.
I had to look that one up, and it doesn’t seem to be even close. It doesn’t seem to even present any sort of coherent mathematical concept. It’s a mess.
“if it’s punishable by a fine, it’s legal for a price, which isn’t even that high”.
And where is the “funny” in restating the obvious without making any effort to make it sound like absurdist deep thoughts? I could have sent a mildly worded letter, would you have preferred that?
You could have not sent anything. But this would have been preferrable to the wordy slop you posted:
Then I encourage you to outdo me. Cause this meme just mutated in the wild and Dawkins can shed that tear. 😂
I have already outdone you by posting an already-existing meme.
Touché, but you’ve only outdone yourself because I wasn’t aware of that :P
They want validation and need to feel like creators with out putting in any actual work…They are just adding to the noise.
Ah yes, the ultimate lazy way out: deciding to ask the Oracle of Delphi questions instead of commanding her to solve my problems, all while navigating RSI. Makes absolute sense.
Aaaand youre using the very same fucking trash to generate an infographic about it? Talk about class treachery.
Class treachery? I am a middle aged software dev that finally got bit by RSI; I ain’t rich and I got no savings, so who do you think is gonna feed my kids if I stop working with AI?
Why are kids always the greatest excuse/reason for anything? In a world like this, you decided to throw kids into it, which will have it worse than your working ass.
We got more money than we would ever spend, are not even working, but we still think we’d be too poor for a kid and would have no time for that. Not even speaking of more than one.
Noone is forced to procreate. And if, there is abortion.
But to be on topic: Switzerland does it better (partially): the fine is proportional to your networth. With 2mio a month, a parking-ticket will equally substantially hit you like it would the broke dude.
Why are kids always the greatest excuse/reason for anything? In a world like this, you decided to throw kids into it, which will have it worse than your working ass. Noone is forced to procreate. And if, there is abortion.
Because we can’t assume everyone has equal access to birth control across culture and geopolitical borders? You’re speaking to someone from a different continent over a net that’s bisecting oceans, we may be conversing casually in one language, but why does everyone assume resource or cultural uniformity from complete strangers when the physics themselves behave differently at different latitudes?
But to be on topic: Switzerland does it better (partially): the fine is proportional to your networth. With 2mio a month, a parking-ticket will equally substantially hit you like it would the broke dude.
I wish it were proportional to net global revenue, now that’d actually be the killer move because you can’t take a hit and still meet quarterly growth formulas without justifying your losses to the shareholder groupthink. lol
conversing casually in one language, but why does everyone assume resource or cultural uniformity from complete strangers when the physics themselves behave differently at different latitudes?
It’s pretty easy to assume that someone who uses a very niche social media on some kind of technological device is also advanced enough and capable to use said contraceptives and habe the basic knowledge of how life works.
Cultural thing? A cultural thing forcing me to procreate even when I couldn’t and shouldn’t? Where? And why is in this place of darkness network coverage and the knowledge of Lemmy? And why even care for privacy…
And if it’s for religious reasons: well…if you’re just a tool, you especially shouldn’t procreate.
a hit and still meet quarterly growth formulas without justifying your losses to the shareholder groupthink. lol
Lol. I’m not swiss, it’s just what one hears of its neighbor. But it’s still a lot better than, AFAIK, most everywhere else. Here, I don’t care for parking- or speeding stickers, it’s just a bit more expensive to park whereever I want (except disabled, that is like donating your car). While poor people are killed with one single parking-mistake or speeding. That is highly unfair and unjust. Fines shall hurt.
Cultural thing? A cultural thing forcing me to procreate even when I couldn’t and shouldn’t? Where? And why is in this place of darkness network coverage and the knowledge of Lemmy? And why even care for privacy…
See? Those are internet-tinted shades you’re wearing, making an assumption that mammalian procreation is 100% voluntary when it’s just as accidental/unlikely as life emerging from entropy at Surtsey for no practical reason at all.
A fish can’t tell water is wet because it’s literally swimming in it. And the little pebble we all live on is so saturated with unlikely convergences that we think probability plays by the same rules in a vacuum compared to our Goldilocks zones and build particle accelerators in a gravity well to detect gravitons. It demonstrably does not. This also applies with subjective experience at the personal level.
Now that’s not to mention the fact that just because I understand you doesn’t mean I agree with your philosophical stance to the issue of reproduction to begin with.
And if it’s for religious reasons: well…if you’re just a tool, you especially shouldn’t procreate.
And that’s the meat of it. That’s your faith in your subjective judgement manifesting as hubristic holier than thou attitude. You most likely don’t want people assuming gender but are now measuring the worth of an entire person’s life experience based on someone’s undeclared beliefs. That’s your fitness function? How does it measure the fitness of a reproduction license for a version of Einstein that developed as a secretly non-binary Aztec priest?
A fish can’t tell water is wet because it’s literally swimming in it.
A lot of words for not saying much. Are you a politician by trade? My point does not change much if procreation is forced. It should not a have been on a an additional layer then.
How does it measure the fitness of a reproduction license for a version of Einstein that developed as a secretly non-binary Aztec priest?
Dude. Are you high? Seriously asking, not judging. What does anything have to do with that? The world sucks for poor people, and they’re the ones procreating the most. While they shouldn’t. No reason or circumstance makes this point any less valid. Only adds layers to why not.
And why even bring gender in it? Who cares for that? What does procreation have to do with that? If you can’t raise a kid properly in this broken capitalist hellhole and only breed slaves for the others, it does not matter what gender you are. Not that it would matter in any other aspect.
Also: belief != religion. I don’t care for beliefs. I find them silly and childish but to each his own. Religion is a totally different matter. And also not really adjacent to the point
Dude. Are you high? Seriously asking, not judging.
No. Just negotiating a protocol.
What does anything have to do with that? The world sucks for poor people, and they’re the ones procreating the most. While they shouldn’t. No reason or circumstance makes this point any less valid. Only adds layers to why not.
And that’s the protocol I am negotiating. That sentence encode implicit assumptions I am trying to wrap my head around. I cannot figure out how you made the leap from this hypothesis: “The world sucks for poor people, and they’re the ones procreating the most” to this assertion: “While they shouldn’t. No reason or circumstance makes this point any less valid. Only adds layers to why not.”
Trying to parse this because the only assumptions on your part that would make it valid are:
- All poor people MUST be miserable
- All people consider money as important as you do
- Procreation while poor is extending the state of misery indefinitely
And why even bring gender in it? Who cares for that? What does procreation have to do with that?
Because assuming someone’s quanta is the same as assuming their gender. If assuming gender is a faux-pas then assuming anything about someone’s personal life is the same mistake wearing different makeup. If deadnaming someone is rude then asking a religious person (and I am not claiming to be, just to be clear) to justify their personal choices to you using entitled language is just as rude.
If you can’t raise a kid properly in this broken capitalist hellhole and only breed slaves for the others, it does not matter what gender you are. Not that it would matter in any other aspect.
If you think the entire world is a capitalist hellhole then your vantage point is narrower than you think. Do you think your subjective experience applies everywhere? Your sweeping generalisation doesn’t even hold WITHIN your own framework, because if the barrier to raising kids that know how to live a happy life is monetary value, then rich people would be more fit to reproduce and happy rich people would naturally outnumber the incompetent/unhappy poor, but that’s not happening, is it?
Also: belief != religion. I don’t care for beliefs. I find them silly and childish but to each his own. Religion is a totally different matter. And also not really adjacent to the point
I don’t dispute that belief is not the same as religion, but let me add my bit to make my stance clear: religion is the set of conventions that form around a common practice or shared belief.
That’s a very convincing argument. Thank you for the insight.
You really cooked with that image description
the top of the image looks somewhat AI, so it is likely the image description is also generated using it.
It is! Everything you see here comes from collaboration with AI.
Mainly because I’m an old fart with too many ideas and RSI to stop me from doing anything with them, so I can’t exactly do it myself with a mouse and keyboard.
Don’t go hating my executive prosthetics. Collaboration with AI can be a positive force. It’s just being used and marketed the wrong way.
No single human is likely to have deep expertise in all of those domains simultaneously, whereas an LLM can synthesize explanations across them instantly.
I knew as soon as I read this comment there would be chaos. Sorry, friend
You can not “collaborate” with an LLM as it has no agency on its own, merely the simulation of it. You use it as a tool, that’s it. It also has no inherent expertise on anything (let alone a deep one), it merely generates the closest match which is why it will confidently do total nonsense so often. To use AI as tool safely and correctly you can only ever use it in domains you already know enough to understand when the LLM completely derails. Therefore I (as an example) can use and understand it for research on coding (but not letting it generate code for production, oh my god), but could never use it for finance advise as it could tell me any kind of nonsense without me being able to pick up on it.
You’re right on some things, like that AI is marketed and used the wrong way. It’s also made the wrong way by stealing literally the collected works of mankind, so to have reasonable approach to AI / LLMs as tool you have to be really cautious, use it carefully and quite frankly skip the media (pictures, audio) generation completely. That one is morally corrupt even in small amounts, plain and simply.
You knew what he meant. Don’t be pedantic. Having “a back and forth conversation with an AI, where I also made manual edits at times, to iteratively produce on an image” is too verbose, and “collaborate” sums it up nicely.
Especially since the conversation with the AI is literally in plain English. Do you talk to your power drill in English? Or table saw? Or toaster? No, but you do talk to an AI and have a conversation.
Just because it’s not “intelligent” or “self aware”—or other things you definitely don’t want it to be anyways—doesn’t mean you aren’t having a conversation or collaborating. Those words apply just fine.
No, they fucking don’t. These differences matter a lot especially because LLMs behave so human-like (as it was trained on us) and we got way, WAY too many people already treating them like equals, work buddies, friends or even fucking falling in love with a tool (ever heard multiple people genuinely fall in love with a power drill or a toaster, or killing themselves because the table saw told them they’re the messiah?). Words matter, especially in regards to what we call “Medienkompetenz” in german (lit. “media competency”, meaning bring educated in how to safely consume and use any kind of media or digital tool). And even more especially with AI, where not just the salesmen but even the tool itself tells us it can do shit it certainly can not while trying to abuse our emotional weaknesses.
Collaboration (merriam-webster.com) “to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor”
You do not “collaborate” with a fucking toaster. If you think you do with an AI then your Medienkompetenz is lacking and you will eventually, even accidentally, put too much trust in what is essentially a game of chance and the machine will fuck you over, on which it will just say “You’re absolutely right!” while you have to witness all the consequences of your action (an AI can’t take responsibility because it’s just a bunch of complex math). The fact this tool uses natural language doesn’t change anything except your impression of it.
Stop subtly treating LLMs like a god damn entity, you’re fooling yourself.
I am sorry. I take it back. You are correct. Words only have one meaning, and that meaning can never be stretched to mean new things.
I certainly don’t want one of my memes to fuck me over.
These differences matter a lot especially because LLMs behave so human-like
To be pedantic, LLM’s don’t behave like us, they pretend to behave like us. They’re really just complicated auto-correct.
Neural networks have more promise to eventually behave like us, but that’s not what the AI craze is trying to propogate.
Most of what you speak of is caused by this simple statement from the onset:
You use it as a tool, that’s it.
If you use it as a tool, then expecting anything but minimal compliance would be an irrational expectation, because it will do exactly as you ask, which is the bare minimum to satisfy your requirements.
I got tired of that, so as an experiment, I decided to go about it differently, and made a couple discoveries about how to make it work. Turns out LLMs can’t pattern match things they don’t have in their training sets.
Accessibility is of extreme importance to me.
