Aren’t MP3s just a statistical correlation?
Besides, you really don’t need to zoom in on “but muh license agreement” to roast these AI turds.
They’re very clear: We’re gonna put creatives out of work, we’re gonna sell a unified product to replace them, and we’re gonna use their own labor to build their replacements.
That’s anticompetitive.
Nail em on that instead of trying to thread the needle on reining in the tech lords without damaging e.g. linguistic analysis researchers.
They did issue a fix: “Buy a new CPU please!”
That’s why they don’t mind the reputation hit. If 1 person swears allegiance to Intel as a result but 2 people buy new AMD chips, they’re still ahead. And people will forget eventually. But AMD won’t forget the Q3 2024 sales figures.
Edit:
I recommend Robert Evans’ analysis of the manifesto and the rest of the AI hype: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-companies-advocates-cult-1234954528/
“We believe any deceleration of AI will cost lives,” his manifesto states. “Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murder.”
And murder is a sin. The more you dig into Andreessen’s theology, the more it starts to seem like a form of technocapitalist Christianity. AI is the savior, and in the case of devices like the Rabbit, it might literally become our own, personal Jesus. And who, you might ask, is God?
“We believe the market economy is a discovery machine, a form of intelligence — an exploratory, evolutionary, adaptive system,” Andreessen writes.
[…Evans makes a comparison to Scientology, and their belief that those who stand in the way of their “tech” become “fair game”…]
My point is that the goals Andreessen and the e/acc crew champion right now are based in faith, not fact. The kind of faith that makes a man a murderer for doubting it.
Andreessen’s manifesto claims, “Our enemies are not bad people — but rather bad ideas.” I wonder where that leaves me, in his eyes. Or Dr. Roli for that matter. We have seen many times in history what happens when members of a faith decide someone of another belief system is their enemy. We have already seen artists and copyright holders treated as “fair game” by the legal arm of the AI industry.
Who will be the next heretic?
Right on, friend. Take care. And I’m sorry you’re getting kind of a rough response to being so vulnerable here.
At this rate, this thread is gonna become deep and pedantic.
built up
release
push it down
unleash
This wording is troubling, and suggests that maybe you believe in the catharsis model of anger?
That’s where you believe that anger is “stored” somewhere and “builds up” over time, and must be let out in some “healthy” way later. The problem is, there is no healthy way to express deferred anger.
If you allow yourself some visceral reward for getting angry and fixating on that anger, what you’re doing is training your brain to look for excuses to become angry and stay angry, so that you can get that dopamine hit of “blowing off steam”. It feels like it works, cuz it feels good. But it creates a link between getting angry and feeling good.
Pay attention to whether you have structures in place which are rewarding you for getting angry, and try to replace them with less rewarding, less stimulating responses.
Lmao, I actually debated whether to say “literally”.
I typically hate that word too. But I wanted to convey that it’s a constant thing, not a fluke. He thinks it’s a “literary rule”. So using “literally” seemed… “literally” appropriate.
Proper usage of ‘s.
Guy joined my team a few years ago and uses ‘s for literally everything, and now most of the team does it too.
It bothers me every time, and I’ve typed corrections into the message box so many times but never hit send.
Sounds like you’re doing more damage to yourself than the stranger did.
My kid calls USB cables “chargers”. My sister witnessed this for the first time, turned to me (known techie and pedant) and was like “You’re okay with this?”
Do the one about participation trophies!
Why are you booing them? They’re right!
Scrap Mechanic IRL
Kirby was earlier seen telling Netanyahu: “I’m gonna count to 3, young man! 1… 2… 2.5… 2.75… 2.8…”
I’ve always read that sign this way.
Also misunderstood:
“Do Not Pass” (and “Pass With Caution”)
As a kid, I wondered why my parents would continue driving past those without even flinching.
“Bridge Ices Before Road”
I originally took this “before” spatially, as like “in front of”. So the bridge ices in a very particular spot — just before the bridge ends and your route becomes road again.
I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”.
You might be interested in Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty”.
Basically, there is no absolute thing called “liberty”, because anything you do changes the material world and the state of the material world also shapes what you’re able to do. So you can’t talk about simply “liberty”, and must always describe it in terms of those two relationships. What Berlin calls “freedom to” and “freedom from”.
For instance, I might consider my liberty to mean that I have the “freedom to” shoot a gun in the air. My neighbors might consider their liberty to mean that they have the “freedom from” falling bullets.
We can’t create a policy which guarantees both “freedom to” and “freedom from” for all people. But we can create a policy that guarantees both for some people. We just have to allow that some people get to enjoy both the rights and the protections, while other people lack the rights and must suffer the consequences of others’ actions.
And that might be why the contemporary conservative version of so-called “libertarianism” plays so well with a notion of a superior social class, whether that’s economic, religious, or racial. You can invoke the word “liberty” in support of your attempts to bully others, and then you can invoke it again as a protection against others’ attempts to bully you.
Basically mom saying “I don’t care who started it.”
It is strange and striking that climate change activists have not committed any acts of terrorism. After all, terrorism is for the individual by far the modern world’s most effective form of political action, and climate change is an issue about which people feel just as strongly as about, say, animal rights. This is especially noticeable when you bear in mind the ease of things like blowing up petrol stations, or vandalising SUVs. In cities, SUVs are loathed by everyone except the people who drive them; and in a city the size of London, a few dozen people could in a short space of time make the ownership of these cars effectively impossible, just by running keys down the side of them, at a cost to the owner of several thousand pounds a time. Say fifty people vandalising four cars each every night for a month: six thousand trashed SUVs in a month and the Chelsea tractors would soon be disappearing from our streets. So why don’t these things happen?
I haven’t tried it yet, but GrayJay purports to be an aggregator along those lines: https://grayjay.app/