I can't find anything saying that the Luddites demanded social welfare and retraining. Everything I can find on this (ironically, including asking ChatGPT) says that they merely wanted the end to the machines, and that they ultimately lost.

Sadly, this is the technology many have dreamt of since childhood: an AI that listens with me and sees with me, learns what I want to know, and privately tells me things. But companies can't seem to make products without keeping a history of every possible thing they can and selling it to advertisers. And as soon as a company makes a non-free version that doesn't harvest your data, they go out of business because everybody wants the "free" version.

Guy walking down the hall: "Hey buddy, how's it going?"
My ocular or in-ear AI: "Larry. Coder on project Foo. Son Joey just joined cub scouts."
Me: "Doing okay, how is scouting working out for Joey?"

Larry: "Nuclear power is dangerous and a waste of money."
AI: "That guy has the lowest electricity costs in the state because he lives right next to Blingville Nuclear Power Station."
Me: "S.T.F.U. Larry"

The problem though is not that the existing plants are not cost efficient, the problem is the scale is too big for anyone to commit to a project. Imagine Design A which cost $30 billion to make. Number of plants built = zero. Design B produces less power, and is twice the cost per kwh. But it costs only $3 billion. Number of plants built = 10. But wait... shouldn't they have built just one Design A plant? Yes! But will they -- no! Because it is easier to manage the risk of multiple $3 billion projects than a single $30 billion project. Perhaps, once we make enough of these, and the nuclear market returns and the public is no longer afraid of them - they we can go back to Design A.

Everybody knew this. The problem isn't the slurping of data, but the slurping of data *without attribution* and *without regards to the copyright*. When I do a Google search, I get the citation. But not when I use the AI. Of course, if we make the AI companies pay proper royalties, cite attribution, and pay licenses - the companies will just move to China.

This is a great big hole in AIs today. I'm totally fine with someone sucking-in all the knowledge from the entire universe to create Commander Data. That sounds frieking awesome! But since the AI's neural network degrades in a similar way to our brains, it can't know the sources. And really, if you synthesize data from multiple sources, it is kinda hard to source it anyway. But this is definitely an issue!

What if the AIs we have today are actually the best AIs we will ever make, because they were done without regard to copyright laws. Hereafter, it might be that there is no financially feasible way to get enough data to train the next generations.

According to this letter, the 1 in 800 figure comes from:

Fraiman J, Erviti J, Jones M, Greenland S, Whelan P, Kaplan RM, Doshi P. Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Randomized Trials in Adults. Vaccine. 2022 August 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacc...

Archive.ph link
Wayback machine link

Key observations about that paper:
* They didn't have the raw data. Both in the summary, and in the links below, they state the data source is web searches. The paper lists various reasons why the numbers in their analysis might be wrong and might not match-up with the general public.
* Section 3.4 of the linked paper shows the placebo group as having ~1 in 5000 Serious Adverse Events. So according to that, EVEN THE PLACEBO is too dangerous to deploy to the public! Perhaps the definition of SAE changed between 1999 to 2022 if the Rotoviorus vaccine is safer than the Covid placebo?

To add to your point, concerns about vaccine-induced blood clotting goes back 20 years before the Covid vaccines existed. We have no evidence that any of the Covid vaccines or mRNA vaccines are any worse than vaccines we used before. It's like every time a new vaccine comes out, the same exact complaints and concerns surface, each time the media treats it like it is something new.

The OS is the worst part of Meta Quest. It has to be rebooted often or it gets frame drops or outright freezes. Our house reboots every time you use it just to be safe. Whenever you switch accounts it forgets your home environment and your boundary. Lots of features look like they are untested experiments because the UI makes no sense. (ex: It displays instructions right over top of the things you need to click on). The browser is flaky.

Great hardware, awful OS.

I expect taking a client list from one company to another is illegal even without a noncompete.

Who thought that the tracking device was not being used to track them?!?

He did not make a statement about quality, he made a statement about perception. It may be changing now, but as recent as 2022, owning a Tesla was a status symbol in China.

That proves the exact opposite. That's how we know, without any doubt, Apple has complete access to the backups: they handed them over to the FBI without complaint.

However, they were stale, as the phone hadn't been backed up for a while, and the FBI wanted them to unlock the phone so that they could get the more recent data. That's where Apple refused to help the FBI.

In the end, the FBI didn't need Apple's help, they were able to root the phone due to one of the many zero days in iOS.

Which is why it will be complete shit.

People seem to forget this is pretty much the entire reason behind Apple's "privacy!" marketing. Their phones don't protect your privacy: by default, everything is backed up to iCloud along with the key to decrypt it. They hand that over to any law enforcement agency that asks. Pretty much every official Apple app is opt-out when it comes to privacy, the default is that it sends all your data to Apple.

But when people point out that iOS voice recognition is terrible, or that Siri is constantly getting worse, or that these new AI models are useless, their excuse will be that they couldn't train them or use as large a model to "protect user privacy."

Never mind that they're already spying by default.

For content creators? Sure. They're going to get screwed.

But for viewers? Pretty much anything that anyone can do that isn't watch YouTube is competition. It doesn't have to be streaming video. It could be games. If enough people decide it's more worth their time than YouTube, it could be watching grass grow or paint dry. It doesn't really matter.

Exactly. If YouTube makes the viewing experience miserable enough, people aren't going to decide "I'll subscribe to YouTube!" they're going to decide "screw this, I'll do something else."

It's one thing if there's arguably a value add for a service, like better quality or earlier access or something. But YouTube Premium's "value add" is basically "we'll stop intentionally poking you with a stick." That's not a good way to get people to pay, that's a good way to get people to do something else, and there's a LOT of "something else" people can do besides watch videos on YouTube.

I suppose the fact that this story has been up for an hour with only three comments answers that question.

But really, does anybody care? The PS5 basically didn't exist for the first three years it was out. It's only been readily available for the past year, and even then, pretty much everything released on it (including Sony stuff) is also getting released on PC. The PS5 might as well already be dead.

Plus, Nintendo's new console is also expected out next year. The Switch has proven that a dedicated portable gaming console that supports docking with a TV works. Why would I want to get a large, expensive box I can only use with a TV? Especially when Nintendo is almost certainly going to be coming out with a cheaper console that, while expected to be far less powerful, will play a far greater assortment of exclusive titles?

Sony's going to have to provide a pretty compelling reason to bother with a new, even more expensive PS5. A better framerate or higher resolution graphics isn't it. The Switch has proven that pretty conclusively.