That calcium-loving one that eats your bones if you touch it?

Im beginning to think that, as annoying for users and difficult to build a userbase for as it may be, the answer might ultimately have to be for future social sites to charge people for use in some way, be it to create accounts or as a subscription or just for the ability to post/comment/vote or whatever. If it’s no longer going to be feasible to keep bots out, and there’s a financial gain for their use, then they’re going to get used, so at that point it has to be somehow more expensive to run a bot than that bot can be expected to bring in as a result of it’s contribution to an advertising or manipulation campaign, to deter them. On the bright side, I guess it might lead to a shift away from advertising everywhere. Either you charge people and therefore dont need ads, or you dont, and have most of your ads being “seen” by bots, which advertisers probably don’t want to spend money to reach anyway.

Ive seen this said a lot here lately, but like, cloud computing still requires computer hardware, so shouldnt an increase in hardware prices make that more expensive as well?

Not to mention, even if it proves satisfactory to the existing userbase, any new users will start with no history to draw inferences from, wouldn’t that tend to imply that any existing users unaffected are essentially “grandfathered in”, but with the same privacy concerns for everyone else in the long run?

It does say “as a baseline” so presumably its just there for comparison’s sake

I wouldn’t say print books have no place today, it can’t be assumed that one will have access to electronics in all circumstances after all and many people do prefer physical media, but it’s definitely an indictment of the sort of cheaply made basically disposable books made in larger quantities than needed to fill their current niche, and of the way unwanted (by their owners) but usable goods are dealt with in general.

Sure, but it is rather a waste of paper, ink, manufacturing and transportation capacity etc. It’s not the only instance of this of course, waste of unsold inventory exists in just about any industry that sells physical products, but it’s still frustrating to see it.

The AI training rights thing makes me wonder: presumably, having to grant them permission in the ToS implies that without being given permission, there is at least some situation in which they would not be legally allowed to train an AI on some data? If that is the case, how should a case be legally handled where a user that does not have permission to do so from whoever legally owns said data, posts it and it gets used in the AI training? Presumably if this came up before AI training, all that would be needed to remove the content once the legal owner found out would be some takedown process and the relevant posts would be removed. But, as far am Im aware, you cant just remove something from an AI’s training data and have it “unlearn” that thing as if it had never been included.

You misunderstand, I am not saying “make sure he spends it responsibly”. Nobody has has “made” him do this at all, and I didn’t advocate for a policy of doing so. What I’m saying is that I don’t think this particular use is worthy of condemnation the way his other actions are, because in the long run I think that this specific thing will end up benefiting people other than him no matter if he intends for that to happen or not (even if the American healthcare system prevents access, which I’m not confident it will do completely, not every country has that system, and it’s statistically improbable that the US will have it forever, and research results are both durable and cross borders). That sentiment isn’t saying that it excuses his wealth, just that I think people are seeing only the negatives in this merely because of the association with Altman’s name and ignoring the potential benefits out of cynicism. The concept is just as valid with him funding it as it would be had he been condemning it instead.

The response to something beneficial being only available to the rich shouldn’t be to avoid developing that thing, it should be to make it available to everyone. The failures of the US healthcare and economic systems don’t suddenly make developing new medical techniques a bad thing. Human augmentation is another issue from curing genetic disease, though I’d personally argue that wouldn’t be a bad cause either, with the same caveat about it availability. It at least has more potential to improve somebody’s life somewhere down the line than just buying a yacht with his ill gotten gains or some other useless rich person toy would.

I’m not sure I get the universal negativity to this. Like sure, Altman sucks as a person, and an individual having enough money to significantly bankroll research like this is a sign of an economic failure, but surely curing or preventing genetic disease is just about the most uncontroversial use human genetic modification could have?

Microbes are still made of chemicals, it’s just different chemicals

The moral justification for upending people’s lives or worse based on the circumstances of their birth and what paperwork they’ve been able to complete?

and not to mention, the tools required to create it (maybe not the best examples, but still) are already in the possession of virtually everybody.

Is the tower of London still an option?

Were it really true that letting people move between countries unrestricted causes some kind of serious problem, one might expect a similar kind of issue to arise from internal migration within a particularly large country like the US, and yet, one can freely move between states without it causing some kind of government failure. I don’t really believe modern society actually is different in a manner that makes larger populations disadvantageous, since demand for goods and services increases with population size, having more people in an economy should organically increase the number of jobs required to meet their needs, it’s not like we dig jobs out of the ground like oil such that a given place has a fixed number.

I do get that unrestricted immigration isn’t as popular with, say, the democrats or such, as anti-immigrant people like to claim. However, I am in favor of unrestricted immigration. For me to say that I want ICE abolished isn’t to misrepresent my stance on that matter; I can only truly speak for myself and whenever I say that I desire that organization dismantled, I mean it entirely literally.

I could see customs, but immigration? Honestly the more I think about it the more I conclude that the entire concept of immigration enforcement and a distinction between citizens and noncitizens is unethical

How exactly do you extinguish a cult with reason and fact? They’ll just ignore you or use your public debunk as a way to gain publicly with members of your audience that had never heard of them.

I don’t imagine that would be enough time for someone to even process the various stimuli enough to realize that what just happened was a gunshot, tbh, let alone consider the implications of that.

Assuming the time wasn’t an exaggeration that is, I’m fairly squeamish so I don’t think I’ll be watching that video to see how long it really was.

I think that the general idea of artificial intelligence in education hold some promise, in the sense that if you could construct a machine that can do much of the work of a teacher, it should enable kids to be taught in an individual way currently only possible for those rich enough to afford a private tutor, and such a machine would be labeled as an AI of some kind. The trouble is, like with so many other things AI, that our AI technology just doesn’t seem to be up to the task, and probably just won’t be without some new approach. We have AI just smart enough for people to try to do all the things that one could use an AI for, but not smart enough for the AI to actually do the job well.