Does anyone, ever, have any faith in the integrity or competence of executives, these days? Because it seems to me that most people would outright prefer them to burn but are powerless against the increasing abuses and betrayals of employees.
People love to bring this up, but while yes, all cells have some form of memory mechanism or another, with quite the number of nerves outside the brain, we are still a cognitively top-eown organism and quite unlike simpler organisms where the line is blurry.
In machine learning terms, we've basically got a layer or two of neurons responsible for physical memory stored outside the brain, sure. But it's out of dozens if not hundreds total.
The death toll of especially the early variants was huge, and it created the largest spike in disability(vis fatigue etc) and cardiovascular disease in recent history.
I'm glad that this was the case for you, but presenting it as an universal truth is extremely cruel and harmful to people for whom it is not, and you should be really careful with phrasing. Statements like these is why people's symptoms are not being taken seriously.
> It's a great place to live, genuinely. But calling this "Poland's economy" is like calling a McDonald's franchise "your restaurant"
Economically? Yes, if you ignore the fact that we're one of the most overworked populations in the first world and pretty much all low-level jobs(restaurant/call office/etc) have abysmally poor working conditions.
Culturally? Developed cities in Western/Northern Poland and Warsaw, sure. But everywhere else is shades of shitty and if you're LGBT+ a third of the country has legislation against your very existence.
Poland has made a lot of progress but calling it a great place to live is - while not altogether untrue - a statement of privilege more than universal reality.
And none of it has ever been to protect children. Almost everything nasty happening to children is facilitated by parental neglect if not directly by abuse, but no government body has ever cared to even try cracking down on it.
It's always the privacy and freedom that have got to go so we can protect children from the terrifying internet boogiemen that probably won't even get slowed down by the new laws while 99.9% of child abuse continues as it always had.
I think it has also been pretty clear from the beginning of his current term that the primary principle of this administration is to pass whatever has been paid for. E.g. the literally hundreds of executive orders that he started signing en masse the moment he got elected, none of which were written in his style or pen or even possible to write in such volume for a single person in a single day.
> I asked myself, "well what specific laws would I write to combat addictive design?".
Only allowing algorithmic feeds/recommendations on dedicated subpages to which the user has to navigate, and which are not allowed to integrate viewing the content would be an excellent start IMO.
I don't think there's any way for that to happen, and IF we could create a solid legislative framework, AI could definitely (at some point in the future) contribute more good than bad to society.
Obviously it should not apply to anything using machine learning based algorithms in any way, just content made using generative AI, with exceptions for minor applications and/or a separate label for smaller edits.
The downside to having labels on AI-written political comments, stellar reviews of bad products, speeches by a politician, or supposed photos of wonderful holiday destinations in ads targeted at old people are what, exactly?
Are you really arguing that putting a label on AI generated content could do more harm than just leaving it (approximately) indistinguishable from the real thing might somehow be worse?
I'm not arguing that we need to label anything that used gen AI in any capacity, but past the point of e.g. minor edits, yeah, it should be labeled.
AI-written articles tend to be far more regurgitative, lower in value, and easier to ghostwrite with intent to manipulate the narrative.
Economic value or not, AI-generated content should be labeled, and trying to pass it as human-written should be illegal, regardless of how used to AI content people do or don't become.
This is by far the biggest failing of capitalism. The entire world contributes to economical growth, but almost all of this value is captured by a tiny group of the rich elite.
> Big Tech cannot ruin your life if you simply don't participate in the capitalistic market. I mean sure, it's difficult to live completely off-grid, but in modern world, it's a long way before you starve to death.
You still have to pay taxes, and doing this means giving up on a lot of your existing human connection, joining a community in no small part comprised of crackpots, tanking your quality of life, and losing your influence over the future of broader society.
Furthermore, it's a personal solution to a systemic problem. It'll work for a few people, but it's not a fix.
People boycott AI art in indie games, music, etc. but it's still finding massive use everywhere across most industries, and by and large companies are getting away with it.
> would never command as much money as the original unless someone deliberately mixed them up so that nobody would even know which was which.
That is based on current sensibilities which are capable of change. Give it 20 years of PR campaigns and who knows where we end up.