You can’t do a fair comparison unless you also collect all of the negative effects and determine whether the positives outweigh the negatives. If the impact of AI was universally positive, it wouldn’t be as controversial
And they’ve carelessly put zero safeguards in place to prevent abuse and that is where all of their bad PR has come from. If a warrant were required for every query, it would be a completely different story
Sure, and if the same level of effort were required to get the same amount of information, this probably wouldn’t even be up for discussion. But now we have technology to basically stake out every single citizen at any time with just a few mouse clicks. We can’t just pretend those things are equal.
My thoughts as well. The main complaints I remember hearing about CDs were people claiming that they were “too clean” and didn’t have the same personality as analog formats
There are a lot of reasons to hate on Meta, but this seems mostly harmless. It might even be a positive thing if it helps parents spend more quality time with their kids instead of doomscrolling their FB feed. So what if the parents got the story from AI. I remember being too exhausted to do much of anything sometimes when my kids were younger. Getting some help with a bedtime story would have been welcomed
It’s an interesting idea. A company called Hyliion https://www.hyliion.com/ tried something similar here in the US about 10 years ago. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to have success in the market and ended up pivoting to power generation for data centers.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Other large laptop makers such Dell have some of the same scale advantages (minus in-house silicon) and might be more willing to sacrifice on profit margin.
You can say that, and it might sound good on paper, but someone who went on a mission to take from the poorest to enrich himself cannot be considered anything but a monster from a moral perspective
I could be convinced to support public cameras if access to the footage was tightly controlled and only used for solving serious crimes, but government officials and flock themselves have repeatedly shown that they can’t be trusted to use them in a responsible manner. It’s too powerful of a tool to put in the hands of untrustworthy individuals
I don’t understand the controversy here. I know Tesla is prone to false advertising, but having a human take over in an emergency situation seems like a good safety measure. There have been documented instances of autonomous vehicles blocking traffic during emergencies. Having a human operator step in in those situations seems like a good idea.
It is interesting how so much of the speculation in those days was about how x86 was a dead end because it couldn’t scale up, but the real issue ended up being that it didn’t scale down.
My guess is that “War in Iran” can be seen as a neutral name. It is literally where the war is taking place. Whereas “War on Iran” assumes the perspective of one of the sides even if it may be a more accurate description. Sort of like how people in Vietnam don’t call it the “Vietnam war” because that would not make sense from their perspective but it does make sense from a neutral perspective.
From what I’ve seen, AI tools don’t do well with large codebases with lots of technical debt and complex interdependencies. If you see some project that requires tons of manual testing to keep running and only a few crusty veterans know how to make changes without causing more problems, this is the kind of project that could be fairly immune from AI takeover. Bonus points if there are poor or limited unit tests. Projects like these exist in the bowels of many large companies chugging along helping keep the business running. They may not be sexy, but if you really want to avoid AI tools, it could be an option
No the assumption behind the statement and many others on this topic is not AI is more productive than Human + AI, it’s that 9 (or 8 or 6) humans + AI is more productive than 10 humans. No one is suggesting getting rid of all workers, but many are saying they can get rid of a significant percentage of them. It remains to be seen if that ends up being true but it is fundamentally different from what you are describing
The ones that still assume big brother will be spying on and killing the people they hate. Trump openly campaigned on getting revenge on his enemies. I can only assume his supporters want this. The danger of course is if/when the leopards eat their faces