wilg

You're misunderstanding your own argument.

The obvious rebuttal to that framing would be that if those workers are not able to create that value on their own (such as by starting their own business or bringing their expertise to a firm with more favorable terms) then they aren't actually contributing that outsized value, the company itself is. And if they are able to do so but choose not to, then they are not being exploited.

Can’t be because business chat both sucks ass and uses grey bubbles.

I'm as happy we have a non-crazy pope as the next liberal, but as someone who isn't religious I think it's very important to be skeptical of any opinion given by a religious leader. As such, they've declared they are rejecting the best tools for understanding humanity, culture, and the physical world, and have deeply compromised judgement.

That's not X.

That's Y.

The problem is what I was originally replying to - people making false claims about reality. This makes improving the world substantially harder because misinformation affects what choices people make in their daily lives and in elections.

Similarly, I've heard people talk like that about things that are not drugs.

They don't need to justify it!

You're not going to believe this, but happiness is well studied too: https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction

This information is just... available to you. Yes, homeownership being one of them - improving.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

Yes, "sex in exchange for money or drugs" - improving.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr046.pdf

Look, don’t know what to tell you, there is lots of extremely reliable well vetted and well understood information about the welfare of people on this planet and in what directions it is moving. Pretending information is imaginary or offensively abstract because you’re upset about income inequality (which is even more of an abstraction) is not good or helpful.

Basically all the data we have about people’s actual reality (including and especially what they say they are experiencing first hand) does not match the dire descriptions of the people I’m replying to.

What are you relying on if not information about reality?

Whether most people agree is irrelevant to whether it's right. You can look at all kinds of numbers which are not the stock market to determine how well people are doing and whether things are getting better or worse. Your conspiracy theories about unemployment numbers are wrong.

"What people have" is robustly measured, well-understood, and pretty much all available evidence suggests that people (at least in the US and developed countries) are doing better than ever on most important metrics. But it is not as seductive as "everything is terrible"!

Better how?! It's obvious how doing less work to figure out your transportation is a better user experience. And again, that's just a trivial example. If people like making grocery lists, that's fine, but I bet there's other things they might consider drudgery that could be automated.

Fortunately the complaints about the economy and homeownership are also just folk wisdom that doesn't really reflect reality https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/how-gen-z-outpaces-past-gene...

The economy, real wages, etc are basically higher than ever (despite idiot Trump's best efforts).

People are mad because being mad is fun and we're all on being mad machines 24/7.

Sounds great! Everyone in these comments seems to be so out of touch with what people want out of computing.

Many banks just OAuth with Plaid now.

"How many cases are ok" (aka "zero tolerance") is a doomed to fail approach. Especially for a complex social problem's interaction with a complex new technology.

If you want to find out if ChatGPT is doing something wrong, there are many methodologies available: compare to other groups of people, statistical studies, etc.

I also think OpenAI's business model is pretty well aligned with the goal of users not killing themselves for like 100 reasons. And they do appear to take it seriously.

> Why is mental-health crisis not a gating category, the kind where the conversation stops, full stop, and the user is routed to a human? This is one of many questions I can’t find concrete answers for.

I don't know if there are studies or concrete data either way, but it seems at least plausible that continuing the conversation could be more effective (read: saves more lives) than stopping it.

Come on, obviously this is just because it's not a regular user because its some weird bot in their backend. You can still mute it.

Regardless of whatever other opinions you have on this, I don't think its a fair characterization that the original tweet was "polite" or "nice".

Two issues -

1. Local models are likely to be more power-expensive to run (per-"unit-of-intelligence") than remote models, due to datacenter economies of scale. People do not like to engage with this point, but if you have environmental concerns about AI, this is a pretty important one.

2. Using dumb models for simple tasks seems like a good idea, but it ends up being pretty clear pretty quick that you just want the smartest model you can afford for absolutely every task.

Nice of Donald Trump to force us into a choice between poisoning the air and financial hardship! But at least it was for a good reason: ???

The point of the comment is to spread toxic and deadly cynicism.

This is true only if there is exactly one person who buys them.

Using "apologia" here is pretty embarrassing.

What games that are on GOG without DRM have DRM on, say, Steam? (Many Steam games have no DRM.)

People really have to internalize that these things are expensive to run, and that there isn't enough compute to go around, like actually for real for real, which is likely the source of this. My guess is its a temporary new sign up pause.