A planet whose oceans are filled with a liquid that is almost, but not entirely, unlike tea.

A civilization capable of interstellar travel is very likely also capable of growing as much cultured human-meat in a vat as they want. Itâ(TM)s much cheaper to just capture a few biopsy samples and send them back to Betelgeuse then to slaughter, freeze-pack, and ship every human trillions of miles.

Yes, that content. Those same users got value in exchange for their content, in the form of access to a well-designed site full of content that was/is useful to them.

Who is complaining? I'm not complaining, and StackExchange isn't complaining. The only people complaining are the people who think StackExchange shouldn't be allowed to charge LLM companies for access to StackExchange content.

Since we're on the subject, has anybody calculated how much energy a worm has to expend to move aside/through that much sand at that speed? It seems like it must be rather a lot :)

I think itâ(TM)s fair for them to charge LLM developers â" something has to pay the bills, and it wonâ(TM)t be StackOverflowâ(TM)s users since they are used to getting free content.

I prefer this model to getting spammed to death by pop up ads, anyway.

... or some other mechanism that doesn't require the expenditure of arbitrarily large amounts of valuable energy to solve pointless make-work problems?

Other cryptocurrencies have done it, why hasn't Bitcoin?

Sounds a bit impractical, given that they can update the imagery on Google maps faster and cheaper than you can terraform the countryside :)

Thatâ(TM)s the Genuine People Personality Parameter.

âoeHere I am, neural network the size of a planet, and people are asking me to tell them whether itâ(TM)s safe to feed Cheerios to their dog. Call that job satisfaction? Because I donâ(TM)tâ

If you've defined "AI" as "generative AI" (e.g. ChatGPT writing an essay based on a prompt), then I agree with you -- that's more of a party trick than a useful tool.

OTOH if you define "AI" slightly more broadly as "using neural networks to find solutions to problems that are impractical to solve any other way", I think there is a lot more potential there. The most famous example of that right now is self-driving cars, but there are plenty of other tedious tasks like weeding and tending crops, changing the sheets on hotel-room beds, etc, where an AI-equipped robot would completely change the industry.

Use AI as a cognitive/control system for inexpensive robots, OTOH, and I think it will very much become a threat to those whose jobs depend on doing those tasks. But that's a slashdot article for 2030, not today.

Re-read the title: the areticle is about the ecosystem, not the language.

Having a safe language isnâ(TM)t enough if the library you use has a secret backdoor password in it.

Would it, though? Perhaps most people simply don't want to wear a VR headset, even a good one.

I don't know about other drivers, but when I can't see behind something, I make the conservative assumption that there might be a vehicle there, rather than the optimistic assumption that "of course" that space is unoccupied. So I (and I hope, most other drivers) would not have hit the cyclist. If self-driving cars want to be safer than human drivers, they should implement similar logic.

Finding flaws is a good thing, because now they can be fixed before they cause major problems.

If you want to point to a setback, it happened during the construction of those planes, or (to take the broad view) during the design and implementation of the QA processes that allowed those flaws to make it into the planes undetected.

Not finding the flaws, until after one of them had caused another major safety incident, would be a real setback.

The guy who thinks buying an Apple product is automatically equivalent to being dumb is rich.

Dude, there are valid reasons why people buy Apple products. The fact that they don't seem worthwhile to you personally is irrelevant; you are not the be-all and end-all of technology users, and it's dumb to imagine that you are.