Is there a website for New York City where people can petition for things like this?
If there's anybody from the mayor's office reading this, how about that all banks must provide their services at minimum on a browser through a web app and cannot mandate the use of a smartphone.
Now imagine how poor people stress if their smartphone bricks or gets damaged or lost. Or if they're homeless, in which case the likelihood of their possesions getting damaged is probably much higher.
It's weird that people are sleepwalking into this single point-of-failure dystopia instead of regulating it out existence and only realize it when their phone gets damaged or lost or is glitching in some deal-breaking way.
Here's a tip, if you want people to help you out don't start with, "I don't have an smartphone..."
Instead, say a variation of "Hey, my camera's broken/the app keeps crashing on my phone. Can you help me out?" People tend to be a lot more sympathetic.
I've never had issues with the restaurant QR thing.
me:"Hey, my camera doesn't work can you help me out?"
waiter: "Sure you can take a look on my phone/use this tablet."
Like, I have to fix my phone's camera before I can park in your city? are you kidding me?
Obviously the difference of degree on the spectrum between the two in this case does vary greatly, but your comment reminded me of an interview with a journalist who had compiled a collection of interviews with midtier drug dealers in various cartels and one thing that stood out to him was that almost all of them, when asked why they did what they did, would respond by saying that if they didn't someone else would.
Yeah, this seems like reputation renting similar to Larry Summers being put on the board of OpenAI, which turned out, um...very well I guess. For different reasons of course.
I guess it's better than him joining OpenAI, where I could see Altman being more "creative" with the books than Amodei. But I just don't Bernanke pushing back or blowing any whistles when things start smelling funny.
I'm not sure its accurate to imply that being completely delusional means you have no goal. Gulf War part II had a goal regardless of the deceit involved. The Afghanistan war though I thought took the cake for the sheer delusional premise.
To tie it to the sibling comment about Bosnia, Paddy Ashdown who was the High Representative for Bosina & Herzegovina was also one of the lone voices warning about the Afghanistan war in the beginning.
I wasn't able to find the article containing the original warnings, but here is one article from the early days[0].
That a few men have most of the power is the obvious fact that you seem to be ignoring. The parent asks:
"Who has all the power in the real world?"
If the answer in reality is a few white men have most of the power, how can you insist that they are claiming all white men have the power?
Whether they believe it not, there is no specific point about "heterosexual white men in general". These are your words and do not appear anywhere in their comment.
It's not a fallacy if the parent is not making some point about "benefit for other white men", which you seemed to have injected from somewhere. They simply said that the most powerful individuals having the most disproportionate power being white men is not inconsistent with matters in the real world, however few there are.
Sure, but I think what grates on people with Germany is the "they should know better" aspect of it. People have (or had) expectations of EU countries they don't have of "the harsher places".
It's the attention economy. You're engaging in something that is related to privacy and security, thus the credibility of the author in this domain will also be a factor for people wanting to invest their time exploring these solutions.
To not care who you are would mean not only having to review the current code as is, but to review every update that follows as possibly written by a hostile party. Ie, the time invested would be several times of that invested in something written by a more trusted party.
I never knew about this complaint either, the connection never occured to me at the time as the capitalist cristicism seemed par for the course for a post-scarcity Federation. I don't understand this knee-jerk self -owning behavior. It's like that bizarre tweet by the Israeli government about the photo of an IDF soldier destroying a Christian ornament. The gov. official insisted that the physical features of the soldier contained so many antisemitic tropes that it had to be AI. Thus, the guy was inadvertantly described as the ugliest person on the planet in excruciating detail by his own government.
Nice. I don't know what your comfort with swimming is but battling extreme heat also happens to be much easier when you have large welcoming bodies of water for humans to wade in, and with easy and cheap access for the common man. It boggles the mind that for all its coast line the only place the US has that's comparable is Hawaii pretty much.
Sure extreme heat might ruin the seas too eventually (there is already talk of Asian jellyfish species being spotted in record warm sea temperatures) but the amount of due dilligence needed is non-existent compared to the US, Australia, or far east Asia.
They also have colder beers than Germany probably for the same reason. Nothing beats the culture acclimation of wincing while sipping lukewarm beer under the July sun in 100+ degrees Berlin.
>No, it is because that is the content that people want to watch.
No, that's not a given. It would be more accurate to say it is content people will watch, and not necessarily want to watch. I mean people will watch porn, I'm not sure they want to watch porn.
If you asked someone before vine or tiktok whether you wanted to watch an unending carousel of thirty second videos from nobodies for four hours straight I'm not sure a lot of people would say yes.
Am I the only one who sees ragebait titles to youtube videos that do not contain a modicrum of the rage that is advertised in the title?
I don't think we need to conflate algorithmic nudging with the conscience preference of the user frankly.
Yeah, I think since it's getting provably worse no matter where you start the clock everyone can claim this whenever they actually do leave.
Just to give one example, you have the Google founders bending the knee to Trump these days whereas when Trump started his first term you had articles like this:
"Google co-founder Sergey Brin joins protest against immigration order at San Francisco airport" (2017)
While I agree with your sentiment and observatin by and large, ideally you could have added a few constraints as a lot of people here have had "Holy shit" moments with AI, but often it's most pronounced in a very specific personal context. Learning topics faster, fixing things without having to call a repair man, life-saving medical tips (somewhat more of a thing because of a handicapped health system, but that's another discussion).
Funnily enough though, the benefits don't seem to scale to the work environment as smoothly across the board. It's almost as if, to use pg's famous line, they built things that don't scale.
The moment you scale AI beyond the personal context, the noisiness and non-determinism of the technology starts wrecking havoc in ripples through the industry, damn the productivity. Managing the slop you've created, but more importantly (I would normally put an emdash here) managing the slop others created turns out to be a problem as big as the tech that created it.
What is the evidence of this? Isn't it strange no revolutionary product has yet
been created from the coding output of this technology? More to the point, the only thing that comes close is the Claw. So what we have as the first breakaway product is something to help orchestrate the slop generators, instead of say, a new Phone OS that rivals Android and iOS, or a Metaverse that is actually worthy of its name. Nothing to see here, just more shovels to shovel the shit essentially.
We are still in the grasp of the electric and information revolution. Peter Thiel said more than a decade ago that if you compare life in the 70s and now the only major visible difference would simply be more screens in various forms nowadays. This he presented as evidence that no new revolutionary technology has been created in the interim. At present, the same is more true of AI. It has made access to information faster than before. However, unlike other processes of learning, it has made it more difficult to ascertain the correctness of the information presented. It is doing this by actively removing the direct connection between the information it presents and the primary sources responsible for that information (think Google replacing its search field with an AI field).
The non-LLM AI stuff in the medical field is what I find most promising. Not the banal AI doctors and nurses replacing real doctors and nurses, but more the research end of things, where hallucinating and pattern matching to create new compounds to test seems promising. Of course, any technology that is able to routinely aid discoveries in applied maths and physics will also be welcome.
If this half decade saw an explosion of new bespoke hardware being built and sold aided by LLMs (think a tech shop of 10 employees being able to build and sell robust smartphones from scratch to a niche market sustainably etc), or jumpstarts an era of reverse engineering on crack that pierces through the tech oligopoly then that would be evidence of disruption on a macro scale... But no, alas, we are still waiting.
Yeah, it seems strange to me that otherwise smart people here started in engaging in short-sighted takes about starting a dev shop with a friend to get ahead of the AI curve.
No one really seems to want to answer the simple question: "Why would anyone be willing to buy your AI slop when there is no barrier for a company to generate their own with the same or lower cost?"
You will have to explain. Headphones in work or street environments definitely function to minimize interactions with surrounding humans. I literally think twice before engaging with people wearing headphones and am rather oblivious to people around me when I'm wearing them unless someone is using physical gestures to get my attention.
If general public habits shift to the extent that the majority of people with headphones end up only using them for noise cancelling then my behavior would also shift accordingly.
>if you have a market-first approach you run the risk of the businesses growing so large and powerful that when you do need to intervene, it has become an impossible task.
It's also said that four companies control 85% beef market in the US, which normally should make people rather queasy I would think.
If there's anybody from the mayor's office reading this, how about that all banks must provide their services at minimum on a browser through a web app and cannot mandate the use of a smartphone.