Please actually respond to the comment instead of whatever this is. It looks reasonable enough to me and I trust the FDA more than The Guardian or the "Tucson Environmental Justice Task Force".
We look back on the (at the time influential) claim that rock/metal/etc "corrupts the youth" as a quaint moral panic. Modern views about social media are our version of that same silly claim. Future people will look back on all these comments comparing Facebook to crack with the same amused bewilderment as we look back on the PMRC.
> Children are not emotionally or intellectually prepared to repel this hostile takeover of their minds.
Then their parents shouldn't let them use the internet.
I find it interesting that so much of how people think about morality involves attributing free will unevenly. I.e. "facebook execs" are using their free will to addict people but those people have no ability to resist. It's so obviously corrosive to think something like "only evil people have free will; good people are just hapless victims".
> If anything these models should be compelled to be public since they have been trained off public data. What an absurd overreach to call this an attack.
> It’s clear they are scapegoating national security and China at this point to build an anti-competitive moat.
If all that is required to train these models is public data, why can't Alibaba just use that?
The fact that Alibaba has to resort to scraping Claude suggests there already is a moat...
I don't assume it; it's simply true. Educated/elite Europeans tend to define themselves in opposition to Americans. It's pretty hard to interact with those Europeans (including on this site) and not pick up on that.
There are plenty of Americans who side with the Europeans and also define themselves in opposition to "the kind of American" who has AC/eats fast food/is obese/has no culture. I'm from New England and maybe even a majority of people have that perspective.
Meanwhile ~40 (mostly young) people drowned in France recently trying to cool off as temperatures exceeded 100F around Paris.
It's true that historically Europe is cooler than similar latitudes in North America. But there's also an anti-AC movement in Europe based partly on environmentalism, partly on reflexive anti-Americanism, and partly due to a general preference for "naturalness"/suspicion of anything new.
If you want more detailed numbers, go look them up. BLS publishes them.
Unemployment is nearly at historical lows. But don't let data distract you from the same tired "everything is terrible" line that's every other post here.
The article is saying that using AI degrades certain skills when AI is not available. You're claiming that AI is making people less effective even when they have access to AI. I'm skeptical of your claim.
The article's claim is probably true, but not really an argument against AI. Using keyboards degrades my ability to write by hand but that's not a good argument against keyboards. AI will become another tool that allows us to operate more effectively and at a higher level of abstraction. Just like keyboards and Python.
Now, we still occasionally need people who can write assembly (and do calligraphy). But mostly we don't.
This is such a silly argument. Battery and solar technologies are progressing regardless of people building nuclear. It's simply not the case that we can stop investing in nuclear and use that money to accelerate battery/solar.
It's very fashionable for Westerners to evince belief in the idea that inhabitants of third-world countries have no free will and aren't responsible for their actions. We're told that everything bad that happens in those countries is due to large Western companies or a history of colonization.
This is all very silly. The genocide in Myanmar (it's a civil war last I checked) isn't Facebook's fault (legally or morally). Facebook has surely made mistakes, but that doesn't make them to blame for people killing each other on the other side of the world.