trention

>Do the economics of a gpt-as-a-search-engine work?

Davinci costs 2 cents for 1000 tokens (≈600 words), so no.

>desegregation was actually bad

Yes, preventing freedom of association is actually bad.

But, of course, your goal is to force people with legitimate preferences for not associating with other groups of people to do your bidding.

And because of that you deserve and will get the boot.

And there you have it, the leftist view in its full insanity - it's not OK to "hate" other races but it's OK to kill non-marginalized whites.

>I’d argue it’s a trend that’s gone on much longer

Please, do enlighten us how the first multi-cellular organism was literally the Whig view of history embodied. It will be very entertaining.

Ah, yes, like the extreme position of being against affirmative action: https://www.thefire.org/news/ilya-shapiro-resigns-georgetown...

> racists should find it hard to make friends and find employment.

It may surprise you but any form of social ostracism that is not government sanctioned will not achieve any of that regarding regular people. It will affect only celebrities and a segment of the public intellectuals. (But there will be a different segment that will benefit)

Regarding kanye west, his biggest problem was that a significant chunk of his "sponsors" (=board members of companies) and business partners were actually jewish. Had he said the same thing about Australian Aboriginals (or the same thing about jews but if his main market was East Asia), he'd be completely fine after the initial outrage subsided. So I don't think you actually understand anything about your example at all.

>actions have consequences and you're being held accountable.

If there was no government-sanctioned affirmative action and if discrimination of the basis of race was not outlawed, all the consequences in the world would not change the fact that the "cancel culture whiners" (your own words) will rise in status (both social and economic) relative to minorities and liberals. So, yes - actions do have consequences, including for you.

Extrapolating from a trend that has held in the West for a double-digit number of years to the entirety of the future of humanity is probably an extreme form of availability bias.

>If someone is convinced that black people are inferior to white people, I want them to be afraid to express that.

Elaborate on how and why exactly you think they should be afraid.

Should they be afraid for their physical safety because you want violence against them to not be punishable (or the state to have to enact such violence by law)?

Should they be afraid for their freedom because you want hate speech laws instituted that would land them in jail?

Nobody is afraid to voice their opinion because of the disapproval of leftists and "liberals" so it should be one of the 2 above or something similar.

>Would you enjoy to continue working when your boss badly wants to fire you, and your colleagues badly want to have you fired, but they can't by the law? How soon would you leave by yourself? Being fired usually at least involves some severance pay.

Most (all?) of continental Europe actually has such laws, which is why you don't hear about american style firings here. So, your logic has been tested in practice and found out to be wrong.

The right of free association was already taken away the moment discrimination on the basis of race was outlawed. Find a better argument.

"There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job for though"

No, there are not. Anything you say outside of your working time is not the business of your employer.

>we won't be able to tell whether where it came from anyway

You won't be able to if you look solely at the output. There are ways to check audit and verify the process by which said output was produced. They are also gamable but the cost of gaming them is not insignificant.

>The expectations they have for 2030 are frankly delusional.

Well, they do start with the delusional "copilot writes 40% of your code" microsoft marketing bullshit which everyone who has ever used it knows is not true, so it really is "garbage in, garbage out".

I generally want to see no ads. Why would I want personalized ones?

Idiotic sealioning having nothing to do with AI and neural nets.

>So, why should an AI be treated different here? I don't understand the argument for this.

Because the AI is not a human and only humans have rights, including the right to learn.

>where is that deep hatred of patent trolls

Is it patent trolling when you are defending your future labor from being made obsolete by megacorps and signularitarians using your past labor without permission?

No, it's justice.

Given a binary choice between unemployability and extending patent protection to (even) snippets of code, I am quite confident that 90+% of salaried developers today will chose the latter.

>Why would anyone (artists/programmers) spend their time doing something a machine can do

Why do humans play chess after 1997? Why do they play checkers after the 70s?

AI capability is destroying human enjoyment of activities because it also destroys the economic rationale for engaging in them and/or allows other humans to cheat.

The obvious conclusion of this position is that we should just all kill ourselves if strong AI ever starts to exists. No, thank you, I'd rather do everything possible to prevent it from being created.

There is no reason to legally treat humans and algorithms the same way. Only insane, moronic singularitarians claim otherwise.

>Even if we assume the above rule is made, there is no way to prove it because even if a human does it, he might still use the help of photoshop etc which are planning to integrate such tools currently.

It's unclear to what extend tool producers will support AI in this context at all. Also, this is a problem for safeguarding the integrity of the product of artists, not for safeguarding their income.

What's profoundly stupid is to assume every piece of technology is good so we should do nothing about its proliferation. Yes, we should ban low-code tools based on deep learning over "fairly used" (not) datasets and we should ban the same for music, writing, whatever. AI bros can go cry in the corner, I don't care.

>It's interesting to think about all the controversy surrounding machine-generated images in contrast with a scenario where the same images were generated/drawn/created directly by a human.

It actually isn't interesting. Or, I should rather say, it's only interesting for singularitarians who anthropomorphize algorithms as part of their idiotic (pseudo)religion.

>Visual arts as a career will be dead soon

Put a fine of 10% of annual turnover if a company cannot prove that images used in its product/ads are human generated. Make payment to visual artists part of the process of proving it. Boom, visual arts as a career saved.

It's one thing to say we shouldn't do it, it's quite another to say we cannot.

They only believe this because this won't (immediately) affect their material prospects.

No, he hasn't. Conservatives are 0.36 of the general population, which is ~40% higher than the 0.25 that are liberals.

What does that moronic question have to do with what I stated?

"Ensuring diversity" is not a worthwhile goal for any institution.

>_only_ due to external factors. You are the way you are because of your DNA and environment.

Your DNA is not an "external factor". Rather, it's the most internal factor there is.