pesus

> How could we possibly morally justify denying everyone the best shot to get at least to that level, and I mean living people RIGHT NOW, ASAP not in a few hundred years?

How exactly do you think this is going to happen?

It's pretty telling that only 16% have a positive view on it, then. If even Trump has more than twice as high approval than your product, you've royally fucked up.

Does not at all surprise me that people don't think losing their livelihoods would have a positive impact. Maybe AI companies should stop bragging about trying to do that if they're concerned about people hating them.

If anything, it should continue and apply to anyone using AI.

Why would you add features you know 70% of your users would hate? The fact that you have to hide them from your users because of this should probably be a sign to reconsider.

Seems like a drop in the bucket for these corporations. If anything, it'll just entrench the existing social media sites further and be another operating cost for them.

I'll believe this is actually about protecting children when they do anything to address the myriad of other issues young people today are facing. So far that doesn't seem to be happening.

Funnily, I'm also not seeing any talk about holding the social media companies themselves accountable for any of the damage they've done to society.

This is a social media ban. It's not going to fix any of the issues you're talking about, and there are far greater risks and costs. I say this as someone who despises social media, too.

I'm referring to the 2016 genocide in Myanmar:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/amnesty-report-finds-...

https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho...

In short:

> Facebook contributed to a genocide in Myanmar. Scholars, reporters, and United Nations investigators agree that the social media giant played a role in an explosion of ethnic conflict in 2017 that led to the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands Rohingya Muslims in Northern Myanmar.

What's next, paying them to study worms??

https://www.wgal.com/article/new-world-screwworm-pennsylvani...

Instead of getting upset about made up scenarios, why don't you find some real scenarios? Like the one this thread is discussing, for instance.

Whatever delusions I once held that software engineers are above average intelligence were completely eradicated by seeing how many HN commenters eagerly bought into the obvious lies about DOGE and their goals (amongst other things). It was embarrassing. They sure seem to be a lot quieter about that now, though.

Beyond the regime's hatred of science, they also hate Canada, so that would never happen.

Is it actually coming out of the military budget? I assumed we were just going to get taxed for it, or they'd pull it from some other places that actually needs the funds.

Alternatively, they could just increase the military budget by 300 billion (or more).

Also notable that they willingly and knowingly allowed FB to be used to facilitate genocide, which makes them culpable in it.

The phrase "fuck you, I got mine" comes to mind.

The logical end seems to be another case of pulling up the ladder behind them as they climb up, others be damned. Sadly seems to be a pretty universal human trait, whether intentional or not.

This a very condescending and privileged comment. The job market is much different when you're just starting out, and it's especially brutal these days for new grads.

Yup. After he's spent a considerable amount of time and money to promote Nazi politics.

It's interesting seeing an example of the sociopathy the article is talking about in the wild. This account backs up basically every single stereotype about the tech industry these days. I don't agree this attitude has ruined the industry though, it's actually ruined the entire world.

Don't be surprised if the sociopathy and destruction you love so much comes back to haunt you, though. I'm sure you'd think that was great anyway.

Seems to me like every single person who enabled the process should be held partially responsible, with whoever gave the final approval holding the largest portion of that responsibility.

> It may not be your cup of tea, but it's a lot more effort than typing in a prompt and calling it a day.

Yeah, you have to type in 3 prompts instead of just 1.

> Only someone with little appreciation of music will describe the difference between an actual performance and an AI generated one as "human-level BS".

Unfortunately, this seems to apply to quite a few people on HN, and for all types of art in general. I fear this worldview (or maybe the common root cause) is what leads to the all too prevalent lack of care or outright disdain for people and society in general we're seeing from the tech industry (amongst others) these days.

Many of them, like Thiel and Ellison, are basically all but saying that sort of thing already. I'd give it under a year before one of them lets it slip.

We aren't, but the president and certain politicians sure are.

And if there isn't violence, the police tend to escalate things and make it violent. I suspect this works to prevent/neuter any serious protests so long as the potential protestors still have something to lose, and in America there is very little in the way of a safety net, so living conditions would have to (continue to?) deteriorate quite a bit before protests started heading in a French direction.

> Their business is not needed, and the collateral damage with regards to censorship, manipulation, and erosion of fundamental liberties far outpaces any value their continued participation in e-commerce might bring. This sort of paternalistic and insidious bureaucratic encroachment into every aspect of life is completely antithetical to everything the internet should be. We don't owe them anything, and pretending they (and the UK) have some sort of standing in determination of how the world works simply accelerates the degradation.

Funny, because I would say this applies much more to AI corporations shoving their product into every facet of society without consent or regard for the harm it's causing.

I also seriously doubt that people are going to be enraged and boycott an entire continent of 400million+ people and start using VPNs because a corporation worth billions got held liable in one specific case in one specific location over the behavior of their hallucination machine - a machine no one asked for and is being shoved down their throats, mind you. If anything, this is gong to have the opposite effect and give people a little relief from the onslaught of BS and lies.

And often still makes claims that completely contradict those sources it's "citing".

I noticed you skipped over every other part of my comment to focus on an irrelevant one. Is that an admission that you don't actually stand by what you say?

Beyond the fact that this isn't true, it's even less credible coming from a new, anonymous account. If privacy is really so dangerous and has no value, you should have no issue making comments like these under a publicly identifiable account.

Personally, I only have authenticator apps because my job requires them. I don't see any contradiction in being opposed to things you're forced into.