XnView should meet those requirements, as far as I can see.

Yep.

Those evil, evil bastards did not think you were important enough to waste time writing a reply. Shame on them. Shame I say.

This was sarcasm, btw. Get over yourself.

Thankfully the phone regularly probes home to fix this sort of mess

your entire financial world

You mean the 6.50 on my bank account?

It’s not just the name, from the description I’d also assume that it accepts cookies or at least most of them.

Wait, I thought that just accepted everything? Because if you don’t care about cookies, you’d be fine with anything, no? But “rejecting” cookie banners to me implies rejecting cookies which is different if I’m not mistaken.

My main machine is Suckup (Second Universal Cybernetic-Kinetic Ultra-Micro Programmer), my laptop is Tuckup (Third Universal etc), my phone is Keitaichan (keitai being Japanese for mobile phone), my tablet is Tabbuchan (from Japanese taburetto for tablet), my NAS is Shinochan (from shinorojii, Japanese for Synology), because I am absolutely insufferable and unimaginative and I crack myself up.

They could blame a bad connection.

They’re unlikely to be (significantly) worse than what you get from Google nowadays.

What exactly is the advantage the addon provides?

I was trying to make it sound like I was not bothered by the software lock, so that you would not feel bad for me.

Aww.

I will try my best to be more accurate and truthful in the future.

You things keep saying that and yet, again and again…

Wasn’t you then, cool. It’s been a while since this nonsense started. Even worse though, you brought up an entirely different thing out of nowhere. Have a nice life.

Your original comment said nothing about wealth inequality.

Yeh, I get that it’s just an example. But wouldn’t it be like that for anything you could ask it? It can only work with what you’re giving it and that data could be heavily influenced by you not wanting to see something. Or exaggerating. Or forgetting. A human looking at your diaries might be able to put themselves in your situation and understand, based on their own experience with the human condition, how you were probably feeling in a situation the diary entry is describing and interpret the entry accordingly, maybe even especially when considering other, seemingly conflicting entries. But they’re using “outside” information which an AI doesn’t have.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying what you’re imagining is completely impossible - I’m trying to imagine how it might work and why it might not. Maybe one way to develop such an AI would be to feed it diaries of historical people whose entries we can interpret with decent confidence in hindsight (surely those must exist?). Ask the AI to create a characterisation of the person and see how well it matches the views of human historians.

I am so very much not an expert on AI and I hate most of what has come of the recent surge. And remember that we’re not talking about actual intelligence, these are just very advanced text parsing and phrase correlating machines. But it does of course seem tempting to ask a machine with no secondary motives to just fucking tell me the harsh truth so now I’m thinking about it too.

At that point you could search your diary entries yourself to analyse the way you talk about her. Assuming of course you’re honest with your diary and yourself and not glossing over things you don’t want to realise - in which case do you really need an AI to tell you?

The AI would still need to understand feelings, at least in principle, in order to interpret your actions which are based on feelings. Even “I like having sex with her” is a feeling. A purely rational mind would probably reprimand you for using contraception because what is the point of sex if not making offspring?

Since Youtube is what we were talking about, I see no reason to assume that wasn’t what you were talking about. Also, I do think that the principle can be applied in most situations, some more easily, some less.

What? The original argument was “Just because it exists doesn’t make it good.”, implying that it (click-bait thumbnails) doesn’t necessarily work. To which I said that the fact that it exists means it works. To which you seemed to object by saying that there may be people who have an interest in it existing - like they want it to exist despite it actually not working. I’m confused about what it is you’re saying.

What “interest” would they have to keep it that way if it wasn’t working?

Wealth inequality exists because it works for the people who have the power to control it. In a way, it’s not harmful ENOUGH to change evolutionarily.