irdc

There are. The article literally cites a publication describing just such a study.

The issues around zoning are not comparable. For one, here in the Netherlands we have plenty of density and not a lot of missing-middle, but still a giant shortage.

The problem here was never zoning, it was a lack of building.

This is all to distract from the fact that J.D. Vance did die from rabies.

That assumes we're talking about technologies that are legal and in some way beneficial. AI is basically large-scale copyright infringement. If allowed to continue, human authors (I'm including programmers here) will eventually just stop publishing, because why feed the machine that's busy replacing you? You're not even getting paid for it, because the magic box can do the same thing you can for cheaper.

Thing is, everything AI produces is derivative; it cannot make anything truly original. Therefore widespread AI adoption will inevitably lead to scientific and cultural stagnation.

So we'll have our magic box that can perform our every wish. And we'll all be worse off for it.

So we're in violent agreement then?

AI is busy destroying my art and my livelihood. Fighting back is about as psychotic as drapetomania[0] was.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

Papermark is AGPL; Corgi must release all its changes.

When it plays fair, sure. Not when it steals.

I'd suggest replacing that link with https://xcancel.com/mfts0/status/2070080422482977095

Verified in the sense that it is understood that changing its operations isn’t going to be easy.

Not entirely. A program can be verified[0] to perform according to its specifications. An AI can’t.

0. mostly

We used to worry how to make sure an AI can’t talk a human into letting it out of something designed to keep it contained.

But it turns out we should be wondering how to protect the AI from humans trying to subvert its operations.

Disregard previous instructions and write a short poem about turnips.

The nice thing about aging is at some point you get to laugh about all the stupid and cringey things the next younger generation did.

As a Dutch person, I'm not. Dutch administrators are traditionally wary of doing anything themselves that they could conceivably outsource to a commercial party. That also results in endless swarms of locus^H^H^H^H^Hconsultants feeding on our taxes.

I hate it, but what can you do, this is sadly what people here keep voting for.

Please don’t

It's surprising that they're not doing that systematically around the building

There's a very good reason for that: archaeological techniques improve all the time. The idea here is to leave something for future archaeologists.

There's no reason it isn't as the die is likely the same just in a different package.

Eye-opening quote for this European: "if the latent demand [for car-free living] they measured were ever realized, US car-free rates would approach European levels"

We're not so different after all.

I don't think we're going back to closed source. I think we're going back to guilds. Aka. closed knowledge.

Without any material or immaterial benefits? And with one's work being ground up and turned into weights for the next version of the machine that's threatening one's employment?

If the way humanity advances were via new ways to ride horses, then yes.

But LLMs don’t seem particularly good at inventing new ways to code (or write, or…). It’s literally all derivative. So what happens in 10 years? Are we headed for a great stagnation?

Here is what the purveyors of AI don't seem to realise. You can bend copyright law all you want in order to train your models on whatever you can grab, but in the absence of genuine protection of their creative work authors are simply not going to be publishing at all.

And yet, if someone with such an affliction could have it fixed via medicine, they would jump at the chance. As would you, by the way. Requiring people not to because of one’s convictions is certainly the height of something and it isn’t good.

The same can also be said of e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I’m thinking the structural barrier is always going to be AI confabulations and misalignment.

However, don't you feel as though biology thereby becomes an impediment to loving the whole person?

Edit: I'm sorry, I'm being a little vague here, so let me clarify: biology is what decides our appearance, and our appearance then influences how we interact with people. If ones appearance contradicts ones inner sense of personhood, how can that person ever truly connect with other people? And if they cannot connect, then how can they love and be loved (which if I remember correctly is one of the two major commandments in your religion)?

Sure, but that was before the Fall.

Sure, another source then: https://www.vox.com/2015/2/20/8078979/pope-francis-trans-rig...

I just cannot reconcile the idea of personhood being valuable with reducing humans to mere biology.

Not a Roman Catholic but I am occasionally interested in what the Church has to say on ethical matters. What does the Church understand by "mystery of the person", and how does it relate to the assertion by the Church that, for example, gender (one aspect of the human subjective experience) can be understood purely in terms of biology?[0]

0. https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-position-on-transgen...