Wikipedia is a widely-used chunk of large language model training data, so this fight influences how people get information from AI chatbots, among other things.

Ideologues like some of the nutjobs that devote their lives to editor wars at Wikipedia know this and there is growing concern about the kind of "supply chain" poisoning they can do and probably are doing.

Disclaimer applies since Slashdot is full of similar drooling clowns: I'm a Green voter and/or usually a (D) voter--mainly because the local candidates on the (R) side are even crazier. This isn't about my wanting rightwing views, it's about extremism of any kind infiltrating the tools we use to get insight.

And here we have the very definition of prejudice.

I miss the liberalism of my youth (1970s and 1980s). You fucking kids have lost your minds.

IIRC, a "recall" is a notification of a defect in a car that needs addressing. If that can be done OTA, it's still a recall.

With the right hype, and a high enough price tag on the machine, the coffee snobs will be all over this.

Small difference: drugs are known to be harmful, and illegal. The harm of social media to developing children has only recently been documented

If it is known that social media harms kids, then doesn't the state share some of the blame? Why is there no law?
If it is not known (or only recently came to light), can you really blame the social media companies? You could blame them for trying to block relevant legislation, but not for harm done in the past.
If the harmful effects were known to the companies and they kept it quiet, then you'd have a case, morally speaking. Bit like the tobacco firms.

So how about closing that particular loophole, and make them pay capital gains on the profits that they do realize? For instance, by taxing such loans with no "normal" repayment schedule as dividend. We've had similar issues, with business owners borrowing money from their company with no intention of ever repaying it, thus avoiding dividend tax. A new law caps these "non market conformant" loans at 100k.

A cash grab like this is pretty sickening. Even in the rather socialist leaning country I live in, this would probably not stand, local courts and the ECHR might well consider similar taxes to amount to appropriation, and illegal.

I'm also not opposed to the idea. Not because of a supposed concentration of wealth. Musk does not have a trillion dollars, taken from elsewhere, sitting in a giant warehouse somewhere; it's all stock in a massively overvalued company that he built. His riches do not make us poorer. And I don't envy him his wealth, he's welcome to it.

What I do have an issue with, is the concentration of power this represents. Wealth, whether in actual dollars, publicly traded stock or private stock, represents an undue amount of influence in politics. If we're doing a tax on large companies, or a wealth cap, this would be the reason I'd agree with it. Not a sense of "fairness".

"OpenAI hasn't had their IPO yet, so couldn't they just find some kind of workaround to avoid this?"
Not necessarily. The tax could be paid in stock, in fact that would not be a bad idea. So that the control of important companies does not remain in the hands of a handful of individuals. Again, the only justification of this would be to prevent a concentration of power.

If you've been paying enough attention over the years to have an informed opinion, nothing needs to be explained.

But this is Slashdot, so you are entitled to you random opinions and hot grits.

The poster I replied to obviously did, please try to keep up.

Paypal solved a real problem while also challenging the credit card cartel. I still find it convenient, though I'm not dumb enough to maintain a significant balance.

But Elon doesn't get credit for that any more than he can be blamed by you for Paypal's shortcomings, real or otherwise. He didn't found Paypal, didn't start its money transfer business, and was there for maaaaybe a year after his company x.com merged/was acquired.

Do you have any other emotional takes on history to share with us?

Found the guy who flunked Econ.

If you're stupid for believing Elon Musk, you're twice as stupid for believing Errol Musk.

Not just "the future", but the future of AI. If you go by future projected revenue as predicted by SpaceX (which is the only projection that justifies their valuation), they are an AI company with a small space division. An AI market in which they are not at all well-positioned. Buying Cursor may improve that somewhat. Maybe that's the plan - buy every promising AI startup with stock, until they hit gold.

You're doing it right!

My young adult children (18 and 20) were raised the same way. Both have thanked me recently, unprompted, for being a (self-proclaimed) screen nazi and for banning them from social media until they reached majority.

One inviolate rule I've had for about the last 25 years: no screens at or visible from the family dinner table! No exceptions, not even to look up something relevant to the topic of discussion.

You're right, but our current economic systems are not well-equipped to deal with stagnating population growth. Personally I think that is one of the more difficult and important problems that we're going to have to address.

The value of money is determined by the economy that underpins it. That is why the US is hell-bent on ensuring that the dollar remains the currency for international oil trade. That's also why governments can print a little extra money without triggering inflation, if there is economic growth.

There is an economy underpinning Bitcoin as well, of sorts. But it's tiny.