Taywee

More importantly, how do we keep everybody alive and cared for when all our systems are built around needing a job to survive when we then don't even have jobs to do for more than a quarter of our population?

Absolutely more. This takes very hard and challenging work and turns it into nearly nothing. This reduces decades of skilled labor and education into an algorithm. I'm not undervaluing industrialization, but the improvement in productivity wasn't on the same scale. We're talking reducing weeks of work to seconds in some cases, and that's not even being optimistic with what improvements we might still see in the coming years.

My wife is a novelist who widely participates in fiction writing communities, and a lot of competitions have had to stop taking submissions entirely due to AI work flooding all the submissions. There's been drama on and off recently with AI generated covers, too. Some waves have been made with people winning contests with AI generated short stories. Agents are absolutely inundated with AI queries, and it's only going to get worse as the technology gets better.

It's actually really scary for writers right now. You just have to look at the huge amount of AI generated attempts and think "what do we do when the writing gets really good? What do we do when most novels are mostly AI generated?"

People have spent decades working their ass off to get good and try to get their work sold, and they come out the end of this tunnel right into an era telling them that they're just about to be obsolete.

How many jobs lost and how many created?

On this track, we continue to toil in the dirt, unless we figured out how to automate all the farming too. In fact, it looks like we're automatic all the fulfilling jobs and only leaving toil for the humans.

We've had big advancements before that allow people to do more with less, but this is a staggering leap. The jump from "you need to get a whole bunch of people together to practice and play music together" to "one person can make skilled music in their bedroom" isn't even comparable to "Hey AI, make me a reggaeton darkwave album performed by Kurt Cobain and Tiny Tim".

We're not talking just more art here, or some people losing jobs who then have to retrain. We're talking with possibly very near advancements, entire industries completely emptying, with hundreds of millions of people who now have nothing to do and nowhere to retrain to.

Other advancements have caused job losses and opened many more. I'm not understanding where all the potential displacements from AI are supposed to go, or how we're going to balance an economy when you need an order of magnitude fewer employees than ever to pump out more content than anybody could hope to consume.

This wave of AI has the power to be incredibly transformative for good, but not given any of the current economic or copyright systems we have now.

I don't know how any of the proponents can pretend that this isn't an abject disaster on the horizon for anybody who depends on copyright to make their living.

This is the natural progression to the unnatural properties of the shared delusion of pretending like ideas are property or that it every was natural to keep them artificially scarce. If we lived in an ideal system where ideas are free, copyright didn't exist, and artists and programmers could survive and thrive without the ability or need to hoard their work as if they were physical goods, this would be a non-issue. The system was antiquated for the needs of the modern world for multiple human generations already, and this is the dam breaking.

One of the main points of concepts is to make template error messages much better, and for the most part it's true. Concepts error messages still suck, but they tend to suck much less than non-concept template error messages.

I've done some pretty involved concept work. I made this CBOR implementation that heavily uses concepts: https://github.com/absperf/conbor/blob/main/conbor/cbor.hxx (Warning: I abandoned this mid-development. It "worked" for most of my uses, but many things were dropped in mid-development)

I ended up abandoning it because recursive concepts weren't universally functioning (clang didn't support them right), and more nefariously, the C++ name definition rules made a whole lot of things very very painful. concepts were evaluated based on their definition site, not based on names available where they were expanded. This is true of templates too, but in concepts, it prevented me from allowing users to effectively extend my concepts-based library, and some circularly-dependent concepts were impossible without a dummy "Adl" type to allow ADL to function. There are a lot of little places where the extent to which concepts work is entirely dependent on their order.

In simple cases, concepts allow you to do things similarly to Rust traits and get some of those powers, but in C++, a lot of little frustrations keep it from being as ergonomic or as powerful, and you still have to play stupid C++ name lookup games.

I remember a LOT of little annoyances, as well, in trying to partially constrain concepts, or express recursive concepts (which are very necessary for parsing a recursive format like CBOR). I tried a simple JSON parser that only allowed arrays and strings using C++ concepts and hit the same kinds of problems.

I'd recommend using concepts, I think, but keep in mind that trying to do anything at all generic or extensible might cause you to do more C++ detangling than you want.

An internet search can be illustrative: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/compleat

Nice, but useless when you only have one provider as a legitimate option where you live.

English is highly non-phonemic. It's not absurd. If you considered English phonetic, you'd have to consider almost every modern language writing system phonetic. The distinction wouldn't mean much.

Basically the same here. Oldest was reading proficiently way before preschool, my youngest is 7 and still struggling to pick out up. He's really smart, and we read to him and with him plenty, but it just doesn't click for him like my oldest. He can do math no problem and he loves science and learning in general, but reading and writing are just specifically hard.

It's weird how different things can be for kids even in the same family and environment.

>Raw salmon is a known source of parasites and in particular tapeworm, which can develop from bacteria and grow up to 39 feet long

Tapeworms do not develop from bacteria.

I disagree. Information is not property, and should not be treated like it is. If food could be copied as trivially as ideas and data, it would be immoral to let people go hungry. If homes could be copied so trivially, it would be immoral to let people remain homeless.

Treating ideas as property to be restricted and horded is necessary to some degree in the present world to make it possible to survive from a creative pursuit, but I reject the notion that ideas naturally should be a personal possession, rather than a cultural artifact. Even so, the terms of the system should be tuned to encourage the most and best creativity possible, and allow people to support their families, with some safeguard for death so the family can get back on their feet. Anything more than 10 years is ridiculous. If I die, 10 years living on my creative output is more than enough time for my family to find stability. The idea that a company could just own and horde that work for generations is absolutely disgusting, and completely against the spirit of the system.

It's interesting that its conclusion is totally wrong. It's closer to 2^30 than 2^24

I don't think it's that strange. It's a scientific notation with the signed exponent around 0, so (barring special cases like NaN and infinite), it will be divided roughly in half around the pivot of 2^0 for both signs.

> That may limit the new age restrictions to just Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

So pretty much it's a specifically worded bill to just hit those three.

It's so stupid. I have a 10 year old son. If I died today, why should he have the right to try to profit from all my creative output until he's 80 years old?

I get leaving the fruits of creative work for your progeny so they can have a buffer after you die, but I strongly disagree that the period should be the length of three human generations. My work should belong to my culture and my world after a decade or so, and really, a decade after publication, not after I die.

It is not natural to treat ideas like regular property. Some degree of ownership and control is needed in a market economy, but even for the life of the creator is excessive and stupid. I can create a cultural phenomenon, but unilaterally decide that it doesn't belong to the culture until 150 years after it was popular? Total bullshit.

The same applies whether it's somebody else's or your own. Is it significantly more creative to continually milk a character you made 40 years ago? How about a character your company made before you even started working there?

That's not a lot of power for a monk. What's the typical monk's TDP?

Because most of the entire world is structured such that not working means you don't eat, can't pay rent, and can't afford healthcare

Having less work is great, if we completely overhaul our economy so that not working is a viable way of life.

I'm a cynic at heart, but I'm also a pragmatist. Somebody doing the right things for the wrong reasons is still doing the right things.

I care about effects more than motivations.

Does it seems silly to anybody else to even call these GPUs? That's a GPU minus the G.

As a slight diversion from the carbon focus, the proportion of animals that is cows has increased drastically, as well. Look up the animal biomass proportions. It's shocking (sickening, even) to learn what proportion of the mammal biomass is cows and humans, and what proportion of the animal biomass is cows, chickens, and humans.

If a profit is made at the expense of society, is it a success?

There are other failures than financial failures, as cigarettes and leaded gasoline show.

The assumption that markets are infallible or that good things never fail because of an imperfect market is a fallacy.

Really depends what the group wants out of it. My group has always been joking and riffing, both in game and out. Most groups of friends I've been a part of really like making each other laugh regularly, and that will carry naturally into gameplay and role playing.

There isn't really "the universe", but a handful of official universes and all the universes created by innumerable running and finished campaigns. D&D isn't a game, and doesn't have a single canonical universe. It's a game engine with a bunch of assets for making a game and universe.

That said, the movie takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting. No idea how faithful it is to that.

Very many dishes in nearly every cuisine have at least some foreign origins. The majority of spices and seasonings used in most countries originate from many places all over the world.

The idea of any pure culture (locally, ethnically, linguistically, or culinarily) is a complete myth, unless that culture has been entirely isolated from every other culture for its entire development.

That's not what UBI is about. The risk you take to pursue innovation shouldn't be the threat of complete personal financial ruin that you can't get out of for many decades.

It doesn't matter how confident I am in my vision. If the potential failure scenario is life-long debt and debilitating financial pain for my family and my children for their entire upbringing, anything less than 100% certainty might as well be 0%.

For many people, the decision is "I think this is a good idea, and could do very well, and could bring a lot of good to a very large amount of people, but good things fail all the time. If for some reason, the market decides not to take interest, or some competitor that has yearly turnover in the tens of billions of dollars decides to crush me, then I will be carrying the consequences of other peoples' decisions for the rest of my life, and my savings will be gone, and I won't be able to cope with even a minor medical situation, which is why I make sure to keep 5 figures in my savings account, because even with my medical insurance that I pay $1k monthly for, I can still lose up to $8k per year out of pocket, and medical insurance frequently decides to not even cover my needs anyway. I can't afford the time and effort to even sue them for what I need."

The US is not a good place for innovation unless you're already rich or the innovation is guaranteed not to fail.