oh_my_goodness

>NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU

Somehow this captures a lot of the culture for me.

"Hostility as a feature" has been tried many times, from the old newsgroups of the late 80s to Quora and Stack Overflow. It tends to herald the death of the platform.

Spotify is even worse now. Now it keeps automatically playing stuff I dislike. Even though I'm paying them. (Wait, let me go fix that last problem at least.)

It needs votes. It is better than dealing directly with the corporations, which don't need votes.

>We are not going to see all the houses empty and all the households homeless.

... do you remember 2008? Or no? That was a tiny blip.

Bruh. This has nothing to do with like Elon coming and taking the house away. This is just plain old reality.

Without income or savings, people can't afford houses. How would they pay the property taxes? Can't maintain the house. The house gets repossessed or sold for taxes. This happens all the time. Nobody swoops in and saves those people.

Also, hang on. Will we be "not worse" or will our standard of living "fall precipitously"? Those feel different.

Without jobs, and after our savings run out, we will be homeless people. Then, after that, we can try to bargain for ... whatever homeless people get in this society. It doesn't look like much to me.

Call it 'basic income' if that helps.

If anyone else is unlucky enough to be reading this, please just scroll up to see what everyone actually said.

I'm sorry to say that you don't seem to have read either the thread or my comment.

What you bring to the discussion is the straw-man argument that "wealth can be created, not only stolen." Nobody was disputing that. Nobody is disputing it now. It's common ground.

Saghm tried to return to the actual topic, but you don't seem to have understood (or you aren't willing to acknowledge) what that topic actually was. People were talking about how to fairly divide wealth, not about whether it can be created or not.

I read the comment chain above. I just went back and read it again. I question whether you've done the same.

Always the same straw man argument. Nobody here is arguing that wealth can't be created.

I support doctors. They're doing great work. I understand that in today's US I probably should have said that explicitly, as many Americans seem to have joined the side of the cancer, viruses, etc., and now oppose doctors (or even blame doctors for the diseases). I'm not one of those irrational people.

I agree that 6 extra months (on average) means some patients get much more time than that. I agree that a statistically significant improvement on the survival rate for this terrible cancer is a very promising result longer term.

My disagreement was much narrower than that. I disagree that 6 extra months is equivalent to 5 extra years. I disagree that people living an extra 6 months on average is equivalent to one person living 3 extra years and one person living 3 extra days. I think 3 days and 3 years average out to about 1.5 years, not to 6 months.

Think of me as a living fossil who takes it for granted that everyone appreciates how much medicine improves our lives.

It does fly off sometimes in the game.

I'm ok that they left that part out.

In my comment I pointed out that "5 years" was a bit of an exaggeration compared to the results in the article (6 months). That seemed unfortunate to me. To me 5 years seems much better than 6 months.

Unfortunately in this particular case people die about 6 months later, not 5 years. See the article.

A count of people.

>a lot of the most difficult to treat cancers are now far more treatable, and in the next 1-5 years clinical trials will tell us which cancers this particular drug works well for,

Can you help disambiguate this? Are there treatments now, or are there potential treatments with trials in 1-5 years?

Still, if the code for multiple similar games is in the training data, then that's worth thinking about.

Wait until you see the enshittification phase.

Oh hell no. That's horrible.

I kind of hate it when people "explain" what happens in Alzheimer's disease. Because we actually don't know that.

I agree it's not a strange find. Because fossils. But then what was the big deal about finding it?

Remember, the same author says "I found a seashell in the middle of the desert!" "shouldn't be here" and "coastline 500 miles"

Glad to hear about the book. I'll check it out. It would be interesting to read the author's opinions.

Otherwise I don't understand (yet) what point you're making. Who claimed that S.O. "merely got worse?" I see a discussion with many more specifics than that. One commenter in this thread mentioned griefing users. That's a familiar artifact of enshittification. (The white boxes covering up Google Maps, for example. Or the way Quora destroyed its own site in a quest to "improve questions".)

"We"?

We all knew it was insane to let one company monopolize search. We knew.

We don't know what human brains do.

We know that LLMS "just interpolate" their training data. Maybe there's a mystery about what "just interpolate" means when the data set gets enormous. But we know what LLMs do.

Is this dry humor and/or a deliberate attempt to make the reader even more horrified by the experiment? Or only a different sensibility from mine? No judgement. I just really can't tell.