entropi

While your arguments are correct, I don't think they are relevant.

Like, for example, the government could give me a few billion bucks and everything you said would still be correct. I would also spend it, etc. etc.

Yes, but the same logic doesn't fly for basically any other topic, since German public is very sensitive about their privacy. We need to protect the right to privacy at all costs. Unless if its for copyright enforcement. If it is for copyright enforcement purposes, timeouts and pinky promises about not sharing my ID-associated private data with anyone other than for law enforcement purposes is all we need...

> Web Environment Integrity was so heavily criticized at the time that it made Google itself backtrack. The same Google that forged ahead with Manifest V3. There is no realistic way the German government could get websites to implement an even worse version of that.

I don't think this is a good comparison, though. Google cannot force people to use WEI -yet-. The government can.

>The whole Web would simply become incompatible with Germany.

I think the ad-supported web would just LOVE this idea and would become compatible with Germany ASAP.

> So this would be trivial to bypass on a technical level

I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a way for the tech-savvy. But all the trivial ways can very well be blocked.

> unacceptable on a social level

In Germany, you cannot install security cameras in a building unless all the owners agree, on grounds of privacy. But the ISPs keep all of your traffic logs, law firms get these logs, and mass-send cease-and-desist letters using automated systems. This is also not particularly acceptable, but it happens everyday and looks like it is very enforceable.

Lets not be naive and think this is unenforceable on the grounds of being "socially unacceptable".

While it is completely absurd, I don't see why it would be non-enforceable. They can very well enforce it.

Here is one way to do it: they could take a page out of google's Web Environment Integrity proposal and make it illegal to serve any page within Germany unless the integrity is proven. Done. VPNs are problematic? Ban them. Seems very enforceable to me.

Why do you think it is un-enforceable?

I think this situation is described best as being "above" the law.

Yes, and my understanding is that this is precisely the point.

I completely agree with a lot of your points; the whole thing is quite stupid. My only objection is that the infrastructure will probably not go unused. And if we are lucky, those uses will be better than helping teenagers cheat themselves out of a good education.

Because they are selling the idea of hiring only interns and still getting things done. If an intern using their product screws up the production, its a failure of their product as it is marketed.

I am pretty optimistic that as long as hardware capacity exists, people will find ways of using it. Whether it will be profitable or not is another story of course.

There are quite a few assumptions in your message. But here is, I think, the most crucial one:

> but since the EV is so high for first mover advantage for AGI

is it? why? I cant see why this should be the case. where exactly do you think the "moat" for AGI will come from?

Agreed, and I suspect the explanation is that these plays are done not to search for a true AGI, but to drive up hype (and 'the line').

I don't know how it works in the US, but where I live; patient privacy is actually a thing and they cannot record your sessions or store the recordings and analyze them at arbitrary places without your explicit consent. Even if we accept that this is OK, I would argue there are other problems. Like;

* Copyright laws worked and protected creator's rights. Until AI companies decided that it is ok to pirate terabytes of books. One day they might decide that using your therapy records to train/finetune their models is also ok. And you surely wont have the same resources as major publishers to fight against it.

* Even if you trust HIPPA or whatever to be useful and actually protect your rights, current chatgpt has no such certification (as far as I am aware).

* When you give your data, its no longer in your control. Even if you get extremely lucky and laws actually work, and companies actually play along; in, say, ten years things may change and suddenly your old records may be fair game. Its out of your hands.

It does not make sense to me.

I think an even more important question is this: "do we trust Sam Altman (and other people of his ilk) enough to give the same level of personal knowledge I give to my therapist?".

E.g. if you ever give a hint about not feeling confident with your body, it could easily take this information and nudge you towards certain medical products. Or it could take it one step further, and nudge towards more consuming more sugar and certain medical products at the same time, seeing that it moves the needle even more optimally.

We all know the monetization pressure will come very soon. Do we really advocate for giving this kind of power to these kinds of people?

Last time I got a job offer the hiring process took ~4 months with seven steps, and I had to answer within 3 days.

I do not get how is anyone realistically supposed to coincide the multiple offers they get. Unless you are already in an extremely privileged position, I cannot even imagine how you can do that.

I agree with you three scenarios. But I would assign different probabilities. I think the second option is the most likely. Things will get shittier and cheaper. Third option might not ever come to pass.

Just like clothing and textile work. They are getting cheaper and cheaper, true, but even with centuries of automation, they are still getting shittier in the process.

It is not a binary choice between these two.

If you have ADHD, and you need to work for a living; in time, you come up with personal strategies. I found that I am able to focus on things better when I am under a lot of stress or pressure. So I actively try to put myself into these kind of situations. Or, I found that simply sitting down, removing all possible distractions, and consistently forcing myself to do a thing does work; although with severely reduced efficiency i.e. sit down 4 hours, get 1 hour of work done with ~20 internal interruptions. But it does get done.

These are rather exhausting things to be doing all the time. So you always work hard at working. But you don't get consistent results. If you work harder at working, you get less inconsistent results. My point was that its often worth it.

I get that having empathy with yourself and not hating yourself in case you have to face consequences of having ADHD is very important and good. But I would argue that not fearing the said consequences is a very different thing; and likely not even productive/feasible for a lot of people.

I got the impression that the author is advising for the latter too; considering the title and statements like

>You probably won't change their perceptions, so don't exhaust yourself trying to prove otherwise.

I am also an immigrant, and my residency status has just recently decoupled from my employment status. I can imagine, and am happy for you too :).

Thankfully, I never experienced proper burnouts; but I did experience multiple cycles of being really invested in my job and just barely pushing myself to pay the bills. I do think with time, and by experiencing more cycles, I am getting closer to striking a healthier balance.

As an employee with ADHD, I found this rather unhelpful. Some of us do have to work for a living, and getting fired can have very serious consequences on our lives.

For a lot of us, avoiding (or increasing the likelihood of avoiding) being perceived by our employers as "lazy, careless, unreliable, or defensive" is often worth the exhaustion of trying.

Same. Also the prices are quite steep. 470 euros for the console and games cost 90 euros now? That feels quite unreasonable.

>So I'm genuinely intrigued: what could be the underlying cause(s) of that feeling of hopelessness?

As another commenter pointed out, the teenagers are already well aware of the world around them. But for the kids, the point stands.

Maybe it has something to do with the other adults' attitude? When I was a child, my parents were poor and I was a rather bright one. I distinctly remember adults around me viewing education as a ticket to a better life. Nowadays, it feels like this is not really the case. Maybe the children don't understand what is going on, but maybe they do understand what adults/teenagers around them feel?

Again, the "AI" doesn't care about the website. It doesn't even link to it in vast majority of the cases. Even if it did, the "AI" derives a lot of its business value from the fact that it is providing what the client requests while removing the need to visit potentially dozens of these pages. So the clients, in most cases, would not even click them (as they already got what they wanted).

>But blocking AI crawlers hurts you in the end. Guess what will replace SEO in the long run?

Maybe. But even if that turns out to be true, what good is it for the source website? The "AI" will surely not share any money (or anything else that may help the source website) with the source anyways. Why would they, they already got the content and trained on it.

The owners don't even care about copyright and their deep-pocketed owners. They will certainly not care about playing nice with random websites, or any conventions that may exist in any domain.

Also paying extra does not in any way mean you will get any better quality these days. It is indeed a market for lemons.

Sorry, but I don't think these percentages, turnouts, and other technicalities matter, at all.

This is how the American people has chosen to represent themselves. The American people created the system, and the Americans knew their own system. The system produced this guy.

Now, why does it matter which percentage did he get? He got enough, did not he? And obviously he does have the mandate, because he is able to do things his way.

> will nonetheless make people's lives better

While I mostly agree with your assessment, I am still not convinced of this part. Right now, it may be making our lives marginally better. But once the enshittification starts to set in, I think it has the potential to make things a lot worse.

E.g. I think the advertisement industry will just love the idea of product placements and whatnots into the AI assistant conversations.

> I just don’t see why my life needs to be optimised for making money compared to engaging in interesting ideas and creating peace and happiness in the space around me.

I feel the same way. But I think this is kind of forced on us nowadays. For example, I might want to write a blog post to share my ideas/work/whatever. But it will be used to make money. It will be used to feed my competition. Maybe not necessarily my content, or not necessarily directly compete with me. But as a class of people, by creating more content we are feeding our competition and some minority will make a lot of money out of it.

Maybe I was not doing it for the money in the first place, maybe it was being read by 5 humans in total anyways. But still, I have no escape and I personally find the whole idea disgusting. I will take no part in it.

I would assume at least some of the difference comes from the autobahn conditions.

Also, from what I have been able to observe, EVs are absurdly underrepresented in the autobahns.

A compiled executable is not any less software than the source code. But the point of open source code is not the ability to see the CPU instructions though, is it?

Its about reproducibility and modifiability. Compiled executables (and their licences) lack that. The same as these downloadable blobs.