ricardo81

yes, essentially. But gets hidden behind wealthier countries tucking away the debt.

The prophecies always were about water stress and food security. How that plays out, I don't know.

If it's anything like the recent energy spikes it means burdening future generations of wealthy countries with subsidised amenities while others go without.

DDG used to have a graph showing the number of queries they did daily. It was around 100 million searches a day before they removed it a few years back. They were receiving bad press at the time IIRC.

An educated guess is they're doing a similar number of searches today.

Because it has extremely plausible uses beyond the example you gave.

More to the point it's trained on copyrighted material, so why entertain any use at all on that front if anything.

If it's trained on the world's information, give the world the model.

It doesn't need a tech company to pilfer everything and charge X if we're going to ignore the IP.

The point being that's the solution. I didn't say it is decentralised.

I think you're around the mark. Big tech has continuously eroded the idea of privacy and copyright and explains a lot of their market caps.

Mitigating seemingly has devolved to trade wars and protectionism.

The genie is out the bottle with AI though. So perhaps decentralisation of it puts us all on a new level playing field.

I get "content not viewable in your region", from the UK. Not an ideal image sharing website nowadays.

Fair enough view. I would take the view that social media feeds are filled with all kinds of other junk anyway and were pre-ai.

Yuck indeed. I do find it offensive when someone uses AI in a conversational manner. It's one thing to use it to chuck up content on social media to attract eyeballs, but this is a forum intended for conversation.

Not too dissimilar to googlewhacking where you'd aim to be the only result for a search query on Google.

And in a more indirect way, spamming Google's autosuggest feature to shape what people search for, though that perhaps is more open to factual/real-world information.

dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47862497

Same old story of centralised algorithms being abused.

Github stars is akin to 'link popularity' or 'pagerank' which is ripe for abuse.

One way around it is to trust well known authors/users more. But it's hard to verify who is who. And accounts get bought/closed/hacked.

Another way is to hand over the algo in a way where individuals and groups can shape it, so there's no universal answer to everyone.

It'd ideally be more of a peoplerank though. I think Google discovered this problem themselves when Pagerank became a well known thing.

You'd want to discard a lot of the noise in the bottom 20% of linking power. You want to focus more on the 'trust' factor.

Ah. There's a whole generation of people who never enjoyed the Intel inside / Pentium jingle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVafplZCsjU

So basically the time it takes him to make a cup of tea he's surpassed the net worth of 99% of the world.

Using alternatives surely helps. I think so many people use Amazon because of familiarity and predictable delivery costs (free IIRC with Prime).

A lot of the time other web stores can offer the same value.

I live in his hometown, thankfully a large chunk of the population has been aware of his story since the late 80s. He's an extremely eloquent person and has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the condition.

seems likely. but without a scientific method to back their claims it just becomes a 'common sense' thing.

Fair enough. It's a reasonable expectation of someone that enabled Google maps 15 years ago that enables Gemini 6 months not to understand the fundamentals of how Google treats their keys. If it wasn't explained on the enabling Gemini screen, what do you expect the user to do.

I was thinking more localised. When legislation changes happened (here in the UK) the problem disappeared quickly. The UK being an industrialised country in the context of the parent comments.

Yes, some things would have just stood to reason in a general respect, even if there wasn't hard science to back it up.

That long ago. Surely that helped identify it as a problem even though the science behind it would have been lacking.

A necessary (?) part of progress IMO. Environmental hazards have been a thing for a lot longer too. Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.

Part of the environmental/emissions argument from developing countries is about past emissions by developed countries. I think it's a fair argument to say given these sacrifices made by past generations in industrialised countries + the benefit of developed cleaner technologies through that industrialisation is an argument against that.

I did. Specifically the part about "When you enable the Gemini API". This doesn't take into account that people may have had years old forgotten about other services they use.

I had the same thought. I guess a lot of those keys may belong to dormant/deleted accounts and only a % of people who have enabled Gemini (presumably it required user action)

So basically 'Their “global network of data partners”' means once you submit that information, it's a free for all.

There's so many angles of grind with this kind of thing that big tech has gradually normalised.

I understand where you're coming from. I wasn't meaning from the context of the pseudo-smart person portraying that (which is obviously a thing, probably more obvious nowadays), but a person that is the real article. You meet all walks of life in your lifetime and that unattainable-ness of very smart people can come across as inaccessible, unexplainable or arrogant.

The kind of person that has spent much time chiselling their belief system or is simply fascinated by a field of study that not many people can relate to on that depth. Feynman was a great communicator, but I can think of a few people that may have Asperger's syndrome that have that exceptional insight into things that sometimes results in collateral damage in relationships.

What I mean is there are exceptional people, and sometimes people fail to understand what is exceptional and take exception themselves.

The political narrative of the time obviously was extra cynical about declarations of which team you're playing for, or non-declaration. That's what I meant about non-conformist, they're not interested in the politics.

The problem with extremely smart people is not many people understand them. They're typically going to be non-conformist in any event, and may come across as arrogant if they have an intricate belief system that you may not take the time to understand. I'd think one of the greatest scientists of a generation would have the kind of depth of thinking that few would understand. Having listened to many of his interviews (unfortunately I'm too young to have witnessed these things in real time) he comes across as one of the most eloquent people I can think of.

While reading through that I was suspecting it was perhaps a peer that was envious of Feynman, but an ex (scorned?) partner is extremely plausible.

Isn't part of it that he had leverage on many people, given the amount of evidence there seems to be? I guess that would be one way to further the network via 'favours'.

Did you write your own summary parser for this? I wrote one in the past and found the wiki markup quirky to deal with. The wiki dumps do provide summaries but they seem to suffer similar issues.