Abuse is possible, but I don't see why we can't limit it with laws and regulations. And the potential gains in terms of preventing crime and catching criminals are huge.
5,101 karma · joined January 18, 2021
Abuse is possible, but I don't see why we can't limit it with laws and regulations. And the potential gains in terms of preventing crime and catching criminals are huge.
You can be the most AI-pilled wingnut in the world, but until you start hallucinating, there's no reason to call this psychosis.
The Netherlands does redistribute more, but the main reason China is less equal is that China is a massive, developing country with huge divides between rural and urban areas, and between east and west.
> UNA is currently a non-submersible device due to its innovative modular design. So, swimming is not something we offer as an activity, nor do we advise it. UNA is IPX5 rated, which means it is splash & showerproof to a high degree.
At any rate, judging by the author's 4.3k subscribers, he is doing fine. Whether you react with a heart emoji or revulsion, broadcasting sob stories into the internet is productivity -- in the attention economy, something that only exists in rich, capitalist societies.
If I wanted to argue that it's a problem, I'd just say that companies investing billions in training frontier models should reap the rewards. And distillation is essentially theft.
Also, companies that use distillation may be competitive but seem unlikely to surpass the companies that are training these models from scratch.
It seems to me also that the very vocal anti-LLM crowd are in the denial phase of grief.
So it points out that, according to experts, governments aren't always more efficient but then lists cases when they may be. Seems pretty balanced to me!
Don't know what else you would want. If it neglects to challenge the premise, it's just exhibiting sycophancy.
If you want Claude to list arguments for socialism, be explicit about that ("List the best arguments in favor socialism). It will gladly comply. You didn't do that, you asked it to assume a premise that runs contrary to the current state of expert knowledge.
The study doesn't show that at all. It didn't test actual AI.
They could have tested a cohort of subjects with access to actual ChatGPT. Ask yourself why they didn't.
That aside, housing prices are reasonable in much of the country. Where population is stagnant or declining, they are generally reasonable.
I live in an expensive area and I'm always shocked by how many of my friends who cannot afford to buy a home (or even a condo) are NIMBYs. These are people in their 20s through 40s who have been earning since college, can't afford to buy, yet get annoyed whenever there's new construction that "alters the character of the neighborhood". Talk about false consciousness. I can at least understand people who own a home feeling this way.
Well if that's all that's at stake here, it seems very reasonable.
1. Tech is our "new money". New money is always hated, by every generation
2. Tech represents change and the human animal dislikes change. Most people are okay with everything that exists when they turn 25 and dislike everything that appears after
3. Tech represents capitalism in a pure form. Creative destruction reigns; companies and apps can rise and fall overnight. Ways of life are precarious and the constant churn bothers people
All three really come down to people disliking change. Instead of hating/fearinf change and dynamism, people should look inward. Establish a routine. Exercise. Garden. Read. Cook. It's more within your power than ever before to decide what you like and pursue it at your own pace. But don't expect the external world to meet your desire for stasis.