It’s not dystopian. You are thinking up a conspiracy based on absolutely nothing, when a far simpler and more obvious answer exists(that they decided it would make them more money), and then calling it dystopian. You’re basically saying “here’s a crazy idea that could potentially have been a motivation. Isn’t it crazy that they did that?!?”
Let’s try a couple more using your own thought process:
“McDonalds could have added child play places so that poor children would get exercise and be physically fit enough to join the military when they turn 18. Isn’t that dystopian?”
“Home builders might build homes with wood in order to remove natural resources from the planet to make Earth less of a target for alien invasion. Isn’t that dystopian?”
“Baskin Robins might have been created to make me fat. How dare they? Isn’t that dystopian?”
I don’t want to make unsubstantiated guesses, but we should remember that GPT3.5 was originally just GPT3.5 and when they came out with turbo it not only sped it up but also reduced the cost (to us) by like 10x of what it used to be if I remember right. So they are (or at the very least “were”) working on and succeeding on reducing its cost to run.
As others have noted, there is a “temperature” parameter that defines how much randomness gets injected in its process. With a temperature of 0 it’s results would be repetitive and lack any type of creativity. With a temperature set to max it would hallucinate a ton and have wild answers.
I just tested it in the playground using gpt4 and when I used the default temperature of 1, it’s answers carried from like 303k to 305k where each answer was slightly different. Then I tested it several times with temperature of 0 and it gave the same exact result every time 303820. So the algorithm thinks that 303820 is the most correct answer, but the injected randomness makes it pick slightly less optimal answers. I don’t know if the other answers are completely out of thin air or if it’s training data just had a bunch of different sources that varied slightly.
I hate it, but this is a good move by Musk(if intentional). I learned more about x.ai than I cared to just during my confusion when I typed “ai.com” and this came up. It’s like advertising that’s targeted directly to people that care about AI and because of the initial confusion it caused me to investigate the ad rather than block it out like I do with all other ads.
Entities DO hide their money in tax havens to avoid paying taxes. They avoid paying taxes BECAUSE tax havens have low or no taxes. Those two definitions are defining two ends to the same thing.
The caymans have low or minimal taxes. The caymans are also used by entities to hide their money so they don’t have to pay taxes. Entities are not incorporating in the Caymans for any reason other than avoiding taxes.
And the actual definition of a tax haven specifically is “a country or independent area where taxes are levied at a low rate.”
You might not like it, but the Caymans are absolutely known as a tax haven. You can’t really be arguing that people stash money in the Caymans “because of the transparency”…
“The Cayman Islands are considered a tax haven because the Caymans do not impose a corporate tax, making it an ideal place for multinational corporations to base subsidiary entities to shield some or all of their incomes from taxation. The Cayman Islands do not impose taxes on residents. They have no income tax, no property taxes, no capital gains taxes, no payroll taxes, and no withholding tax.”
“I would not take anonymous crypto for ethical reasons”
Lmao. You’re sitting here telling us that if you got a a real, anonymous donation of $100k, you would not accept it because of a moral objection to the type of currency? Of all the fake high horses…
It’s pretty simple, really. There is “wink wink nod nod” collusion going on across the industry to suppress wages right now. They know that if everybody else is suppressing wages right now, they can without too much “trouble” as well.
Their calculus is just “how low can we keep wages without too much attrition”. Knowing that they have the backdrop of what feels like “always imminent recession”, it gives them a lot more confidence in holding wages down. Similar to how some (but by no means all) inflation was caused by companies knowing that since other companies were raising prices, they could also raise prices because consumers were already primed to think it was inflations fault and necessary.
Lmao you’re literally arguing about the cost of the shelf space for a book in a library now? What if the people that donated the books also donated money for shelf space? It’s literally free to tax payers then. You must realize at this point that you don’t actually care about the cost, you care about having your majority opinion be the only available opinion.
Censorship is the act of suppressing content that is viewed as objectionable. There is nothing in the word that indicates the method of censorship. Allowing a subset of people to dictate what is freely available based on that group’s moral beliefs is censorship. Cut and dry.
And you act like it’s just the money of the people that don’t want the books that is being used. What about the money of the people that want the books available? Should it be up to you to say the library can’t use those people’s money to buy those books?
Quit acting like this is about the money spent when it is purely about you wanting to foist your morals onto others and using the cost as a scapegoat.
And lastly, it is not, and should not ever be the case that everyone has to agree on every dollar that the government spends. Money is spent on good programs that you as an individual will never directly benefit from. Does that mean that we should allow voters to decide how every dollar is spent? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. So long social security and Medicare and the majority don’t currently use them.
I mean, yeah that IS a form of censorship. A majority saying “we allow free access to any knowledge except X domain or Y specific book”.
But just think this through.
Imagine how terribly ideological available book selections would become if we had to have “the voting public” decide which books were available. I have a feeling that you would not be happy with the books that the voting majority decides are “acceptable”.
As always, whenever there’s an article involving Microsoft(or other big tech) on HN, the comment section is littered with people that didn’t read the article, made up a fake point in their mind, and then rage about that fake point in the comments.
Since when is authentication UX inside of a game the responsibility of the individual bank? That would be super crappy if every bank had their own auth ux in every digital platform.
I don’t get why it was the bank’s fault/responsibility here? I would understand if we were talking about Apple or Roblox or something, but why the bank? It’s not like the bank got the money back from Roblox/apple.
I don’t think the bank refunding the money is, or should be, an admission of guilt. It was a “pay this amount of money to make this (wrongly directed) bad press go away”.
So in the end the public complaint was used as a cudgel to take money that wasn’t owed (from the bank).
“McDonalds could have added child play places so that poor children would get exercise and be physically fit enough to join the military when they turn 18. Isn’t that dystopian?”
“Home builders might build homes with wood in order to remove natural resources from the planet to make Earth less of a target for alien invasion. Isn’t that dystopian?”
“Baskin Robins might have been created to make me fat. How dare they? Isn’t that dystopian?”