Energy consumption limit. Every AI product has a consumption limit of X GJ. After that, the server just shuts off.
The limit should be high enough to not discourage research that would make generative AI more energy efficient, but it should be low enough that commercial users would be paying a heavy price for their waste of energy usage.
Additionally, data usage consent for generative AI should be opt-in. Not opt-out.
I would still be programming. Just that it would be the projects I want to do, instead of the ones my employer wants to do.
Well. In that case we have to either move on to argue why I believe that a stateless society is bad and you believe it is good. Or just call it here and agree to disagree. Whatever you prefer. Since I don’t think I can change your mind (on the basis of past experience about this topic, not something personal about you) or that you can change mine about that topic.
EDIT:
Or you could provide a different definition for “xenophobia”. But I don’t think I’ll agree to any other definition.
No I wouldn’t. Just like arguing a murder is not illegal grafitti, doesn’t make you pro-murder. Arguing that a specific genocide is not xenophobia does not make me pro-genocide. I absolutely hate what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and I believe that someone should assassinate Netanyahu and all of his pro-genocide people on power of the Israeli government. Or imprison them for life.
But you can miss my point all you want.
This specific technicality is important for your point though.
I’m gonna explain my reasoning so you can choose whatever you want have a conversation about.
Your claim was that putting citizens above non-citizens is xenophobic.
My point is that putting citizens above non-citizens is a natural consequence of a state. And furthermore, that it is a good thing.
Xenophobia is widely regarded to be a bad thing and that we should avoid it.
If both of our statements are true. The natural conclusion is that we should have a stateless society. I don’t think that a stateless society is a good thing. Therefore I’m trying to find a flaw in the argument. I think that the flaw is that you are wrong. So I have to have a conversation with you about why I think you are wrong.
If you are wrong, it must mean one of these statements are wrong:
Since 2/3 statements are made by me, of course I think they are true. So I’m going to argue about why the first one is wrong.
The only way to proof your statement to be wrong is by first defining what xenophobia is. Which you might call a technicality, but I don’t think it’s possible to have a conversation if we don’t first agree what the meaning of the words we use is.
After defining what xenophobia is, we have to figure out if the “equation” is true: “putting citizens above non-citizens” = “xenophobia”.
The results of an action being done for a reason being discriminatory does not make the reason invalid.
Almost any policy is discriminatory.
Taxing the rich more is discriminatory against the rich. Helping women out is discriminatory against the men. Ending segregation is discriminatory against people that don’t want be near people different to them. The list is endless.
I assume you agree with all 3 of those policies. Yet they are discriminatory. Those 3 policies are done because of very valid reasons.
There are very few policies that I’d say are not desceiminatory. Like universal basic income or universal healthcare. And even then, by your definition of discriminatory, those would be discriminatory. Since they would still discriminate against non-citizens.
There is no world where a person born in X country that has never left X country to receive income from a UBI policy of Y country. Unless X and Y countries have some sort of deal where that happens.
Putting citizens over non-citizens is called being a government.
Xenophobia is the irrational fear of foreign. And fear in this context usually shows up in the form of hate.
Putting citizens first does not mean hating the rest. Being a citizen of a country means that your government should represent you and your interests. It’s only natural that it develops into benefits for citizens.
Xenophobia on a person level is when you see a person that you think is not part of your same origin, do you cross the street, or attack him or whatever. Of course this is not even close to being an exhaustive list.
Xenophobia on a country level is when you punish foreigners irrationally. Not letting foreigners into your country because you have a housing crisis is not irrational, it is a valid reason.
I find it hard to find examples of country-level xenophobia. Even if the act itself may seem xenophobic, the government may want to gain popular support of their xenophobic population, which would be a reason and thus non-xenophonic.
Of course, not being xenophobic does not mean it is good. For example Israel genociding Palestinians is horrible. But their reason is that having a neighbor that claims the same land as you do is problematic, and they figured if they just kill everyone the world will forget in 100-200 years (or less) while the land will be theirs for longer than that with no revels, since they genocided them. Of course, having a reason does not mean that it’s not many other bad things (in this case, genocidal, which is worse than xenophobic).
When I made my Lemmy account (the day reddit put a paywall on the API) most posts didn’t even have comments (sorting by hot/popular). And it would be common to run out of new posts after a bit of scrolling. Now it looks about the same level of activity as reddit 10-something years ago.
Not really. It’s quite easy to understand. They generally want feminism when it benefits them, but traditional gender roles when it benefits them.
I don’t blame them though, I also want things that benefit them. But it’s a dick move to do it with feminism, which is supposed to mean equality.
It’s not equality when they can pick and choose when to be equal.
To be fair I don’t think Russians are excluded because of their “special military operation”. I’m pretty sure it’s because they always cheated with performance enhancing drugs.
Yeah, you can still have a “tick rate” that is different from the rendering rate. Factorio also does this.
I don’t think OP is asking about that case though.
If it is tied to frame rate, then a set of inputs results in a predictable set of outputs.
If not tied to frame rate, those same inputs have to be reproduced with the exact same time delay, which is almost impossible to do.
Sure, sub-millisecond time differences might not always lead to a different output. But it might.
Now, when is this determinism useful?
TAS (tool assisted Speedrun). You can’t tell the game: on frame 83740 press the A button. Given a list of inputs with their exact frames will always lead to the same Speedrun.
Testing. You can use methods just like TAS to test your game.
Reproducing bugs. If you record the game state and inputs of a player before the game crashes, you can reproduce the bug, which means that it will be a lot easier to find the cause and fix it.
Replays. Games like LoL, starcraft, clash of clans have a way to see replays of gameplay moments. If you save a video for each one of those, the storage costs will be prohibitively expensive. What they do instead is record every single action and save that. And when replaying, they run a simulation of the game with those recorded inputs. If the replaying is not deterministic, bugs may appear in the replay. For example if an attack that missed by one pixel in the game was inputted a millisecond earlier in the replay, it may hit instead. So it would not be a faithful replay. This is also why you can’t just “jump to minute 12 of the replay”, you can only run the simulation really fast until you get to minute 12.
I’m not a game developer so I don’t know if it is used for testing or reproducing bugs or replays. But I know it is used in TAS.
Of course, for this to be possible you also need your RNG function to be deterministic (in TAS). In the rest of scenarios you can just record what results the RNG gave and reproduce them.
I don’t see why nanny-state can’t be nanny about cops. You can both apply speed limiters and hold cops accountable for their actions.
I didn’t say that “poverty makes them criminals” was wrong. I know it is true. Was trying to think what it would get to take an alt right’s vote.
There are many ways to address immigration. And not all of them consist on not letting people in.
You can take in consideration what the average person thinks about immigrants and fix that:
I’m gonna try and think outside the box instead of the normal “it’s poverty that makes them criminals! They need better social support” which is probably true, but won’t convince the far right voters to vote for you.
The first one is the easiest to solve of the two. Since in most western countries, immigrants coming to work is actually good for the economy, since the native population has a declining birth rate and is aging, so they need working people that don’t come from births (immigrants). But you can still:
I know 2/3 of those treat immigrants as “lower” people, but it’s still better than illegal immigration or don’t letting them in.
For the second one, the main problem is that 1st generation immigrants are not the issue, but their children are. Because their children were born in that country so most of the time they’re citizens and you can’t just deport them like 1st generation. The only way I can think of to fix this is don’t give them citizenship until they’ve passed an actually hard exam that shows they’ve integrated into the culture, and have a clean record. They would be “2nd class citizens” at that point. 2nd class and normal citizens are legally the exact same, with only one difference. If a 2nd class has children after having committed a crime, their children are also 2nd class. If they have a clean record, it is assumed that they have integrated in the local culture and their children are born as normal citizens.
These ideas probably have a thousand things i didn’t consider, but I believe they’re better than not letting immigrants in.
Non nerd too. Sometimes pol don’t care if the joke is dumb. A laugh is a laugh
Yeah that’s not accurate. They have plenty of oligarchs. Only most of their population is enslaved.
Context: rule 1 is about xenophobia/racism.
Yep. Plenty of china criticism allowed in .ml
You can make the limit per-company instead. With big fines if you make thousands of companies to get around the law.