It only "take jobs" because it's useful. It's useful for making transcription at scale, text revision, marketing material, VFX, all those things. It also does other things that don't "take jobs", like computer voice control. It's just a tool, useful for everyone, and not harmful at all at its purpose. Comparing it to guns is just ridiculous.
So this is about the ego of professionals? As the other person explained, there are many use cases for disposable software, so it's a good thing that there's a new tech enabling non-programmer to create these on their own.
You mean we're not there in simulating an actual human brain? Sure. But we're seeing AI work like a human well enough to be useful, isn't that the point?
It is an obviously wrong approach. There are plenty of intelligent people out there, this doesn't keep them from being occasionally wrong. If you have access to the opinion of people who devoted their whole lives to the field in question, why would you seek it from an influencer that perhaps gained fame from being an authority in a couple of non-related fields?
Is it not reasonable to expect that the keyword "share" functions the same as the share button? I don't know the standards you have for the things you buy, but I find unacceptable that a thing I paid (handsomely) for twists my orders to share adverting to my contacts under my name, and part of the reason things are so bad is because at every valid criticism there are people defending these stuff as normal
Nowadays there are games for all tastes being released weekly, the biggest game of the year, Elden Ring, seems exactly what you're looking for. Also try indies like Slay the Spire, Into the Breach and Rollerdrome
I disagree with the premise of your answer. The statements "there are new, interesting CLI apps" and "there are more critical GUI apps nowadays" aren't mutually exclusive, actually they both make sense if you consider the number of apps out there is always increasing.
I really don't know what you want here, my man. You're asking for irrefutable proof when no one can provide it. This is a curious set of events, not a legal case. If they had the proof you want this would be a much bigger story wouldn't it?
Your YouTube comment specifically makes no sense, copyright strike on what material? Also, didn't you just said that "shadowban" happens all the time? Now it's never been seen before?
YouTube quickly rolled back on the supposed shadowban, but it's very well documented by users on Twitter, Reddit and YouTube, to the point he would need to have a bot army to fake it. I mentioned the warnings on the video as further evidence of YouTube (specifically or systematically, IDK) targeting the video.
Now where you have a good point in my opinion is that he could have shared info on the agents, if he had this info and was legally allowed to. There are reasons he could have not shared, but it's still a good point of speculation.
He claims to have received a visit from the DHS about his other video on police brutality called "America's Police Problem", months before the CIA video situation.
Yes, he doesn't offer evidence the DHS visited him, but I don't see which evidence he could have on that, if you know please share with us. As it stands I don't see any reason to call BS from the start, it seems to fit the DHS's MO, I don't see what's unbelievable about it.
On his video on the CIA, I've never seen another case of a YouTube video showing three content warnings (on Android) before letting you watch it. How directly involved the American government is on it is anyone's guess, it's probably a more systematic action from YouTube, but I wouldn't doubt the government directly requested to not promote it in any way.
I tried posting this link here last year with the title "YouTube shadowbans 'The CIA is a Terrorist Organization' video", but my post got flagged. I'm trying again with a milder title.
Yeah, I strongly dislike chess.com, but the fact that it sponsors so many amazing chess content creators makes it more useful existing than not existing. Too bad most players gravitate towards it over the superior platform (lichess).
A good rule of thumb, and I hope someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong, is that stuff that generate more heat will consume more power. So hot shower, iron, curling iron, hairdryer, rice cooker, this kind of stuff. Electronics that generate minimal heat will consume minimal power in general.
I believe all the public wants is a report with an overview of the mechanisms that dictate how and in which order tweets are shown to different users. Even if no current Twitter employee knows the system well enough to write it, they can still create a taskforce to do so. Sure, 3rd party APIs and machine learning stuff may obfuscate part of the system, but I'm sure the best they can do is good enough for starters.
I for one am very sympathetic towards Elon Musk. I know there are dozens of ways to problematize him, and I'm not being dismissive towards them, but unlike most billionaires I think he's ultimately a well intentioned idealistic at his core, and most of his projects seem to come from a place of trying to make a positive difference in the world (electric cars, space exploration, alleviating urban hell, human augmentation, now free speech). So, I believe he has the means, the will and the competence to make a difference. If billionaires will keep existing this is the kind I want to see more of.
If you think I'm being naive or blind please feel free to explain me how. I'm almost eager to have my mind changed.
It's because, even though I'm a cis male that has never been misgendered, I can empathize much better with the pain of a misgendered trans person than with the pain of any person that was treated by as a "they". To be completely honest I can't even understand why someone would be offended by this. So yeah, I prefer to run the risk of offending by using gender neutral language. And this seems to be the consensus among most institutions that are actually thinking about this kind of things.
Why? Using non-gendered language avoids misgendering people, and even though there are people who are offended by not being gendered this seems like a great trade off.
Some people are genuinely trying to make other people feel included. Some people just do it because of social pressure. One way or another this does feel like a force for the better.
Well, it turns out people are more interested in avoiding upsetting people through gendered language than through non-gendered language. You can't please everyone, and your worries do seem less important if you ask me.
That's absolutely true. Remember that there's a bias for the kind of headline that reaches you: They tend to be the most sensationalist ones, simply because that's how us humans are wired. Everyone wants to talk about nuclear war because it's a grabbing subject, but few are willing to reminds us of mutual assured destruction, which is something leaders everywhere are extremely aware of.