the most useful takeaways are the current statistics, predictions about ai spreading because of demand are largely unfounded anymore. but even at current hype bubble usage it’s an absurd amount of energy.

problem: actual mental help has low availability

solution: ai can stand in where needed

outcome: ai mental health systemically expands while actual therapists remain inaccessible, as insurance refuses to cover them. mental health outcomes systemically worsen across the board.

Hm, that is unexpected. obviously that doesnt include the full manufacturing carbon cost of a rocket but it’s probably close enough anyway.

not even a little, but matrioshka brains are cool

i highly doubt 10 years is even remotely close to breaking even on a rocket launch.

many techbros think this unironically and do hire preferentially asian male employees. google famously got in trouble for this.

“how old is a country” is almost nonsenscal. Constitutions have dates, countries are continuos fluid things. Ill illustrate with an example: How old is your family? do you go by your oldest relative, your last name, some ancient family tree, or do you go all the way to LUCA? it’s nonsensical.

you have described how contextual authorial intent works, yes

it is objectively true that it’s irresponsible to answer as he did, that doesnt mean he shouldnt have done it from a journalistic perspective, but certainly for anyone without the clear intent of potentially being arrested. Dont talk to cops.

it’s criticized in general as a dark pattern that encourages toxic habits and is anti consumer. it is secondarily a problem because aint nobody got time for that shit.

there are lots of things that pharma companies do which are abusive, but the existence of treatments is rarely one of them. Herbal medicine is cool but inconsistent, relying on inconsistent medicinal dosing will kill people. Other comments point out the question is more “how to do industry” than anything else. And no 99.9% of medicine disappearing will in fact kill people.

This is not something you want to speculate on, the point is that in an anarchist society, biochemical engineers, doctors, researchers, would be figuring out methods to make and produce useful medicine. Dont go all primitivist on it because it’s a complex problem that capitalism leeches from parasitically.

what kinda glowie nonsense is “dont talk to cops” now fascism? dont talk to cops, get a lawyer.

no you see they’re right, sufficiently simple is just a fancy way of saying the trivial answer of “doesnt exist”

They are purpose designed to give wealthy powerful people more wealth and power while everyone else lives as serfs in a form of tech neofeudalism. It’s bad.

why do you care that someone didnt say it was worse enough? “x is a problem, if y is true then z is a problem” -> “why didnt you talk about x”

silly.

Because these are often sold with profile building features, for example, recall. Recall is sold as “local only” with profile building features. So it continues to be centralized pii that is a point of failure. As the quote says, as i said.

I don’t care if your language model is “local-only” and runs on the user’s device. If it can build a profile of the user (regardless of accuracy) through their smartphone usage, that can and will be used against people.

emphasis mine from the text you quoted…

building and centralizing pii is indeed a privacy point of failure. what’s not to understand?

that case specifically did not ultimately have broad implications, but similar cases largely affirmed that vendors can refuse clients based on speech they disagree with. however generally these cases have simply danced around the issue. The general implication seems to be you can’t simply discriminate against people based on their identity, but you can refuse to associate with speech content which you disagree with. this isnt set in stone exactly but it seems like this:

You cant refuse to make cakes for black people, but you can refuse to make cakes which say “BLM”, or in the other direction, refuse to make maga cakes, or cakes with swastikas. Can you refuse to cater for say, the rnc? i would imagine so, but it technically isnt addressed that i saw. Can you refuse to cater for a known nazi? Maybe? Probably not technically just by them being a nazi.

what a strangely passive aggressive and rude response. if you want a comment written in your voice and chosen thoughts, you are free to do so.