There is something of a welfare cliff for medicaid, but aren’t there also means tested subsidies/discounts on the health insurance market for when you make more than that but are still poor?

There was actually one published a few days ago that concluded that it can be effective:

Participants with depression experienced a 51% reduction in symptoms, the best result in the study. Those with anxiety experienced a 31% reduction, and those at risk for eating disorders saw a 19% reduction in concerns about body image and weight.

However the person who did the study shares your concerns:

I asked Heinz if he thinks the results validate the burgeoning industry of AI therapy sites. “Quite the opposite,” he says, cautioning that most don’t appear to train their models on evidence-based practices like cognitive behavioral therapy, and they likely don’t employ a team of trained researchers to monitor interactions. “I have a lot of concerns about the industry and how fast we’re moving without really kind of evaluating this,” he adds.

Also they did another article about difficulties and pitfalls of making these things

If reddit implodes there’s not really any likelihood that refugees will seek out lemmy.

Why not? Isn’t that the reason for the influxes of users that have happened so far?

To me it would be worth it for Lemmy to get somewhat Eternal September’d if it meant Reddit being destroyed/replaced with something that isn’t a company.

It would only succeed in filtering really low effort bots anyway, because it’s really easy to programmatically check if you are shadowbanned. Someone who is trying to ban evade professionally is going to be way better equipped to figure it out than normal users.

The impact of this would be proportional to how successful you are at making comments at the top of comment chains

tbf the widely used nomenclature for them is “open weights”, specifically to draw that distinction. There are genuinely open source models, in that the training data and everything is also documented, just not as many.

I think they would still try to go for it but yeah that option sounds good to me tbh

I don’t think it’s actually such a bad argument because to reject it you basically have to say that style should fall under copyright protections, at least conditionally, which is absurd and has obvious dystopian implications. This isn’t what copyright was meant for. People want AI banned or inhibited for separate reasons and hope the copyright argument is a path to that, but even if successful wouldn’t actually change much except to make the other large corporations that own most copyright stakeholders of AI systems. That’s not really a better circumstance.

https://youtu.be/nS9QtzGwBcc simple enough that maybe it won’t get annoying

a website that ostensibly prides itself on giving its users and communities a platform for free speech

lol come on now

Ideally I don’t want my car to be a computer at all, maybe isolated chips to run the abs and such very well defined strictly necessary tasks but that’s it. Maybe a company will happen to make a good car at one point in time, but there aren’t any companies you can trust not to fuck it up if they have perpetual access to tinker with it.

Cars should not have software updates

One thing I like about lemmy is you can still upvote ‘removed by moderator’ comments and I always do because it’s funny

This is all true but I think it was still a good show especially compared to what else was on non-cable TV at the time. There wasn’t any show that actually prompted conversation about it in my family the way Lost did. That they built its appeal on reckless overprinting of plot threads they could never satisfyingly resolve was a dirty trick, but everyone fell for it, so to me they still get credit.

Look at 2020 during covid where the medical workers did not have PPE and how the supply chain was/is still stressed

I think these are more logistical and planning problems than fundamental lack of supply. The mask shortage was resolved by increasing production afaik. There is a large discrepancy between countries in the ratio between quality of health outcomes and expense of healthcare per person; even if it turns out to be a supply problem to get the most advanced available medicine to everyone, it is certainly possible to get the most impactful medical services to everyone.

We also lack the natural resources where we can just throw money aka paper at problems and their gone forever.

This is probably true though, spending by itself might not be enough, just I think that’s more because of dysfunction than natural resources.

It’s a fair point but that’s such a smug way to say it

We don’t have the supply to fill the demands

What makes you say that? Making food and housing and medical care for everyone isn’t impossible