someguynamedq

Do you know what the ouroboros represents?

This but for every major "serious" publication

When is the last time someone was given the death penalty for a white collar crime in the US?

Does this actually happen in practice?

Society determines what "shoulds" turn into "musts," and currently our society does not have any "must" for general cultural or social good. Only fiduciary responsibility. That's the structural cause here and should be the focus of attention

understand != want

123,000 is still very cheap

It's no different from the perspective of a business. A human is a tool in that context as much as a cotton gin or a horse is.

The difference is that it's less clear how humans can "just adapt to use the new tool" when the tool thinks. But this isn't actually that much of a difference -- were the horse ferriers re-employed as engine designers and manufacturers? No. From their perspective the engine was just as much of an existential threat.

The question remains: how do we mitigate the impact of making human labor obsolete on society and on the humans impacted. How do we make sure humans still have a way to contribute to society and the economy? The alternative is disastrous.

1. Well substantiated up to this point 2. Unknown 3. This is a serious metaphysical, question not something to punt on. Is there anything fundamental to humanity that makes us required for innovation, or is the only important thing our taste/selection criteria over which innovations we want? If it's the latter, you truly don't need a labor force the way we have one today to do what we're doing today.

"Path that needs a lot of things to go wrong" -- wrong for whom? For the people with money and power, the people who determine what jobs exist and what those jobs are doing, this would be a dramatic version of things going right (as long as they're able to capitalize on it). Human labor is an expense for business owners, not a virtue.

Not speaking to you in particular, but I'm shocked at how so many otherwise brilliant people are rendered practically neo-luddites by AI. The cotton gin was disruptive, but once it was invented there was no putting the genie back in the bottle. The same is true of agentic AI. The question isn't whether or not it will upset the status quo of human labor, it's how much and in what way.

Which goes to show that despite all of the rationalization both here and in the comments of that PR, the push to ban AI is religious not reasoned.

No different than a human written PR

What change have they achieved?

So just add an optional body to get

Can it change? Yes. That's not the same question as will it change. And that is also not the same question as "will the change result in a different posture towards antitrust."

When was the last time substantive antitrust action was taken that forcefully restructured a large company to a significant degree?

I think their point is less that it really means something and more that enough customers think it means something to provide economic opportunity

"unforgivable" is a little melodramatic

"should" and yet didn't

Occam's razor. This isn't a shadowy manufacturing cabal, threatened by 3D printing. Gun control lobbyists are trying to prevent the printing of handgun frames and Glock switches, because they're the easiest parts to print.

Probably more accurate to say politicians are trying to take actions which will be seen publicly as fighting against gun crime. It seems like a stretch to say anyone earnestly believes that 3D printed guns are a real problem in the landscape of existing gun crime in America

The question is not "will the product be better." The question is will you make the investors money.

Isn't it expected that in a system that favors individualism over collectivism that a few people will be able to amass disproportionately more wealth and power than everyone else with no incentive or societally enforced responsibility to share that wealth and power, thus creating a society were your life is dictated by a few imbeciles at the top, not who are not bought by large corps, but who own the large corps?

Aside from the technical aspect of this (which is interesting), isn't this pretty compromising? How can the US trust that the head of the FBI is not compromised when they know his private information is owned by a country they are at war with?

Tetris and civilization are also harmfully addictive, but the scope of the behavior they can hijack is lower. "One more turn" at 2am is harmful. Just not as harmful as something that knows about and interacts with every aspect of your social life and your view of the real world around you like social/media apps do today.

A really well built hammer doesn't make you want to spend all your time using a hammer, it's just good when you need a hammer. That's a well-made product that you choose to keep using.

People trust third parties too much to manage the security of their communication

Makes sense that the best boss would be shorter since they have to be better to compensate for the bias against them

The thing that interests me is how eager people are to find rationalizations explaining how this effect doesn't exist

Several years ago is ancient with the rate of advancement that LLMs have had recently

Prices have come down but that's not a real price unless there's something seriously wrong with your car. i'm seeing ~15 at the lowest

I'd say this comment fails the "Be kind. Don't be snarky" test. Wouldn't you? If we're appealing to the rules to justify our actions it puts a bigger burden on ourselves to make sure we're perfectly in line with them too :)

Has windows actually been screwed up or do people just not like changes in their operating system?

Sorry, isn't this dead simple?

Maintain a list of identity hashes. When someone goes to vote, deny them if they're already in the list . Otherwise, add their hash to the list then allow a vote to be cast.