Moved from lemmy.sdf.org to startrek.website.

  • 0 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 4th, 2026

help-circle


  • Did the same just now. I liked your message but wanted to change the last line. Also posting what I put in the reason for canceling:

    Reason: Bugs Or Quality Issue

    Explanation: Poor business practices, antithetical to the stated goals of this company and why I subscribed in the first place. Sad to see further enshitification here from greedy psychotic loser corporate idiots.

    Comment: I, like many others will not pay for LLM slop. I am happy to pay PEOPLE for (what was) a good service. I will not pay a fucking computer for sloppy and decoherent code just because “Andy” is a lazy asshole that wants more money without having to pay his people for their hard work and experience. If he decides to fuck off with his AI girlfriend and go live in a data center (preferably one within striking distance of Ukraine), I’ll consider returning as a paying customer. This issue was brought up repeatedly in the forums only to be hidden and deleted, which proves to me that your CEO doesn’t care about his employees or customers or even having a good product, only about money. That is the mark of a true loser and one who will also be losing my subscription.












  • This confused me as well.

    What they are saying is that all cats get the ear clip to show they’ve been vaccinated, if the cat is not going to a forever home and is just being released back into the streets/wild.

    Shelters have more intimate knowledge of whether or not the cat is going to be released, so they don’t bother with the tags. Vet clinics don’t usually handle releasing or holding cats and give a rabies tag to cats that they vaccinate because they deal more with owners and pets who could have a reason to put such a tag on a collar.



  • I thought that they were trying to get at the hypocrisy of using ai tools to detect ai writing, which has a dismal success rate and ends up with a crazy amount of false positives.

    I see that the growth of computer/digital testing directly led to student abuse of ai. Once students were no longer called on to write a blue book or even just generate responses to short answer questions, we failed our students. I understand that term papers and larger writing assignments have their place, but there really is nothing like being able to sit down and show your knowledge in an on the spot essay (at least for a lot of humanities courses where I see ai being abused).

    A systemic issue in this space comes from universities and licensing entities giving testing companies carte blanche to race to the bottom in terms of effective testing tools. For licensing, apprenticeship/mentorship and observation are always better indicators of on the job performance, but that doesn’t have the ease and profit margins of big bullshit testing, so companies would never go for it unless states mandated such pathways. With regard to a lot of current digital university testing, a lot of that was Frankensteined from existing licensing exam tools/strategies and similarly does not effectively assess student/candidate aptitude.

    Even if this was not the intent of the commentor, my argument is that carelessness and disingenuous/gatekeeping testing practices from universities and licensing institutions certainly bred a significant level of disengagement in students which leads to them phoning it in with ai slop. If we wanted rigorous work from our students, we should have kept the same standards for ourselves, collectively.