59percentmore

1) I said it was a completely biased take, you knew what you were getting into.

2) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49956015

I'm well aware of the labor issues, and agree that the use of AI to displace workers is fraught at best, easily transcending to a sort of banal evil under common circumstances.

3) The problem isn't that people have reasonable, rational, and principled stands against how the AI industry has developed. It's that there are also irrational and unreasonable takes that end in, "Literally kill anyone tainted by genAI," and that the vociferous and zealous nature of this opposition is driven in part by fearmongers with links to corporate interests who happily use homespun AI (just don't call it that!); or who are, at the very least, protecting their own economic moat without being up-front that their opposition is largely self-interested (as was the case with anti-AI's direct antecedent, anti-crypto).

I've seen too many real artists crucified by "real artists" and their sycophants for experimenting with or working into their practice these tools.

It does not read as a principled stand, but a tantrum. You can compare the reaction of such artists to that of mathematicians, who were hit not merely with a nebulous sense that the big AI companies were doing them dirty, or enabling others to do so, but an actual verifiable instance of one platform stealing their work and attempting to publish it in official channels without attribution. They are angry, they are doing some soul-searching, but they are not excommunicating AI users or calling for their heads.

Conversely, I've been heartened by the rise of anti-data center activism, because it means that people are actually doing something productive towards the ends they profess a desire for, rather than just bitching and witch-hunting online.

But wait, how can someone who is defending AI usage be happy to see data center projects fail? Could there be actual nuance to their perspective? Life has many doors, Ed-boy.

As with many jobs, more people should probably be doing it, less. Everyone's an EMT, everyone's a cashier, everyone flips burgers, everyone teaches, everyone keeps the servers running - at least, for a little while.

Also solves a lot of problems with (long-term) unemployment.

My completely biased take for which I will cite no sources is that the language barrier allowed Asian fan communities to avoid the corpo-led (Disney et al., surreptitiously through social media-based surrogates) astroturf campaign against genAI (that they don't control). Asian social media doesn't care because the normal human reaction is to not care, and the intense and overwrought negative reaction here was one that had to be specifically cultivated via bad-faith arguments put forward by people with conflicts of interest who leveraged their cults of personality to shut down and marginalize opposition.

Sometimes the sense of satisfaction in creating a piece of art is that it exists at all as an identifiable representation of the original intention. I don't buy these purity tests that disqualify art based on arbitrary measures of craft. That went down the urinal with Duchamp's Fountain.

That is orthogonal to the issue of game developers exploiting technology to disenfranchise labor and produce a shoddy product. There certainly should be economic breathing room in the richest societies on the planet in the wealthiest era of human history for artists to spend time crafting work how they like.

>Prior to the massacre of the Latins the relationship between the east and west was pretty good, in fact the Byzantine ruling class was quite heavily westernized and the economy dominated by Italian merchants.

I don't know much about this subject, specifically, but I struggle to think of examples where, "Foreign merchants controlled the economy," turned out well, and plenty where, "They killed all the foreign merchants," was the outcome. So to see a characterization like, "Before they killed everyone, the relationship was great"... It feels like there's something missing; maybe a bit of awareness. Great for who?

>Prior to the LA riots the relationship between the stores and the customers was pretty good, in fact the property owners were quite heavily down with it and the economy dominated by Korean merchants.

>Prior to the American/Haitian/French Revolution the relationship between the landowners/monarchy and laborers/colonists was pretty good.

They mandated prison-style policies at my alma mater, which is one of the nation's top public schools, as part of a blanket policy for the county. It was clearly not a good fit for that particular school, and my observation was that incidents rose after. I was speaking partially from that anecdote, and remain convinced that prison-style discipline is the issue (even if it precedes metal detectors).

Also, you might not be on the right website.

It's not like the parents are wrong. But it's a structural issue, a product of the way schools are set up, and not of the actions of a given staff/faculty member.

If you treat students like prisoners, they'll act like prisoners, including doing things like assaulting the "guards." If "each unhappy family is unhappy in their own way," strict, blanket edicts aren't going to solve the individual issues each child is going through.

I think you could forgive people for thinking so, in a society where people get sent to prison for decades on the subjective read of technicalities (and subsequently released early when advocacy bashes the government's head against its own injustice for long enough; of course, at that point, the judge is retired or dead and the prosecutor has had a long, successful career, so everyone wins! /s).

Same for contracts where the written language is absurd, and the agreement one party claims without the necessary evidence is way more reasonable, and the court finds in favor of the absurd contract.

It's some sort of industry standard, though, isn't it? Google Chrome on Android auto-deletes the history database silently if it deems it corrupted (e.g., due to a bad write on a system with low storage). You just open your browser one day and it's all gone.

If not, I wonder how Google justifies it.

You presented the data as authoritative when it's clearly not, by the admission of its own compilers. This is a simple thing to disclose if you're certain that the portions your argument relies on are sound. Burden of proof lies with you.

>, if the homicide rate is 2x higher, the most reasonable extrapolation is that violent crime in general is also 2x higher.

Not at all. Different societies have different net values (e.g., violence as a political tool or as a means to some economic end) which will influence the deadliness of violence. So will the nature of the weapons that are available. It's reasonable to expect a trend, but lockstep is unreasonable, and you always have to question if perhaps the situation is unintuitive and higher homicide rates don't go hand-in-hand with higher crime rates for a particular example.

>How is suicide relevant to the incarceration rate?

It isn't, but the incarceration rate was put forward to advance an argument about the relative virtue (and implicitly the relative safety and suitability for a dignified living) of American and SK societies. Suicide rate is relevant. Do you want to make it to your next birthday or not?

  The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary.

  Homicide rates may be under-reported for political reasons.

Homicides are also a fraction of violent crime, let alone all crime.

Also, SK suicide rate is like 70% higher than US, and 50x their homicide rate; as a collectivist culture, it's not unthinkable to suspect that some of the people who would have been murdered in other countries are just shamed into taking themselves out instead.

And, FWIW, SK's 25+0.5 per 100k suicide/homicide rate eclipses America's 15+5 (roughly). If you don't want to die a violent death at the hands of a human being, the US is safer than SK.

It's about a general sense of accountability. It actually does trickle down.

Oh, I think it goes further than that. Many of these companies would not exist without massive subsidies. Their business models were untenable without some monied interest pumping them up. And where did they get their money from? Mainly money-printing, rent-seeking, usury, or good ol' legalized fraud (which is what I consider "burying a right to sell your information to advertisers in the ToS, to the tune of orders of magnitude more value than you get from the service").

And it's not that their services were fulfilling a need, just at a large social cost. Many created a need by using those massive amounts of funding to destroy existing, sustainable services. They're a net negative for the economy and society because they replaced workable businesses (albeit with limited reach because the users bore the full cost) with businesses that will collapse because they're built around ubiquity and forcing non-users to shoulder part of the cost (the only way to break even while paying back investors).

It also ostensibly replaced a search system that would likely have been capable of finding the original document. It's damning that the new one can't.

>What would a medieval jury do, tasked to rule on an AI encouraging suicide or murder?

An interesting conundrum. Is the maker of the AI considered to have been practicing magic and summoning a demon? The user? What's the movable chattel object in this case?

People were self-conscious about their writing (quality, speed) before LLMs. AI seems like a way out of that weakness. That's just the nature of a tool: it seems to extend our ability. People are going to use it if they don't have a better option.

The only cure: be the person people can turn to instead of the machine, whether that's helping them write or helping them become better writers. And, yeah, you'll have to do that cheaper than the AI (netted against the social cost of being the guy/gal who got caught slopping).

They spoiled the twist ending to the trailer. It's right there in the article, right before where the video was linked/embedded. It's unavoidable for readers who engage with the article in good faith; the writer abused the benefit of the doubt that was given to them. I don't understand what you're arguing.

"You can't live in those, there's no indoor plumbing!"

Buddy let me tell you about 99% of human existence.

That last bit is important. For a generation reduced to rooming in small apartments, $100-$200 a month is a lower marginal cost than a larger room/apartment. Maybe not worth it for stuff you can easily replace, but if you have enough things that never come back once they goes away...

That's disheartening. Even the AI got it after some pushing (i.e., it stochastically parroted back my intended meaning in a detailed explanation, which you see above).

If you can't understand where even it "could"... Seems like it's a "you" problem.

>that you also don't care for explaining why those are the same thing to you

I literally just did.

There is a clear emotional arc that the trailer tries to construct, and the article demolishes it by revealing the twist/punchline. It's disrespectful to the artists that made the trailer, the devs who were relying on it to generate excitement for the game, and the viewers like me who had their experience ruined by knowing what was going to happen.

Is this a serious question?

Yes.

>Looking at an AI output and deciding whether it happens to match the fuzzy idea you had enough or not, simply isn't the same thing.

Yes, it is. I say this as someone with a BFA. The feeling of a happy accident from a slip of the tablet pen and a "mistake" in the generation is the exact same: "I wasn't expecting that, but it works." Same when it's an unhappy one: "That's wrong, we need to fix that."

I don't care to spend time antagonizing you with speculation on why you have this wrong, but I can say this with certainty: at the high level of determining if something that I am willing into being, through interfacing with a process and tools outside myself, aligns with my vision and taste, there is no substantive difference between gen AI and traditional methods beyond that which exists between any two given traditional methods.

Well, I suppose it's something that a Verge article held back from spoiling the trailer until just before where they embedded it in the article. Usually they put it right in the headline.

I wish people would stop supporting this trash site and let it die.

This is the fun part: the AI bubble bursts and the price of components keeps rising. Why? Because companies can just sell you a glorified thin client and force your average user to buy their compute, all subscription-like, from data centers.

I don't think that's quite it. Particularly in America's common law system, written laws are not "the law", in terms of what actually happens in enforcement, or in judgment when something ends up before a court. You have to deal with unwritten or disparately-documented standards, norms, case law, etc. LLMs don't know and can't account for curveballs that appear in practice; they'll correctly tell you what the law actually says, and work off that documentation, and blow your case, because that law isn't "the law" in its practical totality.

The lawyers with contempt for AI aren't necessarily the best "critical readers and reviewers of documents"; a good number just appreciate the substantial moat the current system keeps for them, and are contemptuous of 1) attempts to cross that moat without paying a toll, however likely that attempt is to fail, and 2) the way such failures highlight that our legal system doesn't work the way most people seem to think it does, because that increases the chances that the public will become dissatisfied and push for change.

I guess if it doesn't cross that moat, there cool with it?

Well, the key is understanding that the old paradigm wasn't just rare and lucky; there's a good chance that it was unfair, and actively robbing someone else of dignity.

What's happening to you now may also feel unfair, but it's up to you if you're just going to be pissed on your own behalf, or if, now that you recognize that everyone else is going through what you've been newly-introduced to, you're going to go, "Hey, no one should have to live like this! Fix this crap for everyone."

>Theres nothing to celebrate, no skill to honor, no sweat and tears to salute.

I don't care about any of that. I just want people to be able to see what's in my mind's eye at the highest fidelity possible.