A significant % of the population in rich countries, probably close to > 100%, benefits from transport infrastructure and sewage treatment and many other vital services. I don't see why 900M of free users on chatgpt is a relevant argument.
Same experience. RSS is by far the most requested resource in the server logs. Sometimes up to 70% of the total traffic is coming from RSS. That said though, I wonder how much of that traffic is biological and how much is bots.
I also wonder how much is dead traffic. Dead as in people who add a ton of stuff in their RSS readers but don’t actually read.
RSS is a bit of a black box when it comes to this but maybe that's a good thing.
Same here. RSS is by far the most requested resource in the server logs. That said though, I wonder how much of that traffic is biological and how much is bots.
Because I also wonder how much is dead traffic. As in people who add a ton of stuff in their rss but don’t actually read.
RSS is a bit of a black box but maybe that’s a good thing.
> If AI does increase people’s productivity then people should use it.
Productivity is not the only metric worth caring about. If it increases productivity without negative side effects than sure, people should use it. But if it does at the expenses of other metrics then it’s worth debating if we should use it.
Interesting how different perspectives work. It’s less than 400 per square mile in my corner of the country. It’s less than 80 in my area and this feels right for how I want to live.
caring: (adjective) displaying kindness and concern for others.
If you look at this definition of caring and find a way to turn it into a politics issue that's your problem, not mine.
If you scale a problem up, then yes, you get into politics. If you scale it all the way down, politics disappear. If you see your next-door neighbor struggling with something and you can help, you should. That's not politics. That's called being a decent human being.
> Hand wavy general statements are easy to have
I agree. In fact "everything is politics" is a stupid, hand wavy statement.
> You’ll also find lots of shaming among the group and against ‘outsiders’ trying to enforce idealogy. And if you think that part doesn’t happen, just read your own comment - it’s a mild form of that!
Disagreement != enforcing ideology, at least in my world. And if you don't see it that way, then I guess you're guilty of doing the precise thing you're commenting on.
Everything you want to be politics is politics. Caring for other people shouldn't be politics. Being a decent human being shouldn't be politics. There are plenty of things that aren't politics unless you decide you want to turn them into politics.
> You’d have to have a very poorly RLHF’d model (or a very weird system prompt) for it to draw you a Terminator, pastoral scene, or pelican riding a bicycle as its self image :)
How about a pastoral scene with a terminator pelican riding a bike? Jokes aside I get what you're saying, and it obviously makes total sense.
> Is it? They're all generalizing from a pretty similar pool of text, and especially for the idea of a "helpful, harmless, knowledgeable virtual assistant", I think you'd end up in the same latent design space. Encompassing, friendly, radiant.
Oh yeah I totally agree with that. What I was referring to was the fact that even though are different companies trying to build "different" products, the output is very similar which suggests that they're not all that different after all.
> Companies should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they pay for all their negative externalities.
No they shouldn't. Sometimes it's not a matter of paying for the externalities. If you're doing harm at scale the only sane option is to stop doing that, period.
When we figured out that leaded gas was bad we didn't make companies pay for their negative externalities. We banned that shit and that was it.
> The vast majority of people want what's best for their societies, and have different views as to how best achieve that goal, that arise from diverse life experiences.
I'd personally disagree with that assessment. I think the vast majority of people want what's best for them and the cohorts they're in. Which is quite different from wanting what's best for society as a whole.
He wrote "learn your CSS conventions" which implies that every team and every project will have a different set of conventions. Hidden inside that statement is the fact that he just accepted that Tailwind should be THE CSS convention, something I personally disagree with but to each their own.
