Well, when I saw

an optional zero-data-retention feature for enterprise users

I interpreted it as "deleting everything".

Do the police have access to those betting patterns?
With any wildfire which was initiated deliberately, I'd want to look at anyone who "predicted" it - and their associates.

Hawaiian eruption last a long time and the lava flows persist for years.

Your effusive eruptions last on average no longer than our effusive eruptions. The fact that Iceland also has phreatic eruptions doesn't change the fact that most of ours are effusive basalt, just like yours, with corresponding eruptive dynamics. Also, FYI, for a given total effusion volume, slow eruptions are easier to divert. Diversion is much more challenging when an equivalent volume of lava is effused in a short period of time. And it's not like you have vastly larger average lava flows than we do. The largest lava flow on Earth in the Holocene (modern era) is in Iceland (the THjórsárhraun - 900km2, 25km3, 70km underground travel followed by 130-140km on the surface). For comparison, Hawaii's largest holocene flow is the Ailaau Flow at 430km2, 4-5km3, and 40km.

If we want to limit to more recent flows (since Ailaau was fairly recent, in case you think Iceland stopped having big eruptions), Iceland's biggest *after* Alia'au was Laki (1783–1784 AD), at 600km2, 15km3, and 80km. It lasted for 8 months to 2 years, depending on whether you count the concurrent Grímsvötn eruption as part of it. So much gas was released from that huge volume of lava that despite us being nearly arctic (polar volcanoes have much lower near-term climate impacts than equatorial volcanoes), it caused a winter so severe that the Mississippi froze at New Orleans and ice was seen floating in the Gulf of Mexico.

We simply get bigger effusive eruptions than you, full stop. Not all eruptions, of course, both of us have a huge variance in eruption scales and dynamics. But trying to claim ours are somehow "easier" is just not in line with the facts. Also, Hawaiian eruptions tend to occur on terrain that slopes significantly more consistently toward the sea, aka where you want to divert lava toward; on flatter or less-consistently-angled terrain, lava "piles up" more and makes it easier to overtop berms.

There is a practical side that it is easier to move people and build coffee shacks

I'm not talking about "coffee shacks", I'm talking about whole communities and beloved places. In particular, I'm thinking about the 2018 Lower Puna eruption. Of course the homes near the vents in Leilani Estates were doomed, but there is absolutely NO reason why you should have lost anywhere close to as much as you did so far from the vents. Losing Kapoho Bay for example was simply cultural fatalism. I watched a person crying on the news saying she didn't understand why Pele chose to take such a beautiful place. It's not Pele who took it, it's your insane resistance against doing anything to protect yourselves. That was one of the easiest possible flows to divert. Most of the lava fronts moved at a crawl, you had warning long in advance of the eruption and a very slow eruptive rampup (didn't really take off until June), and you had a steep slope to the south into unpopulated areas you could have easily diverted it down. Losing all that was a choice.

"Oh, we can't!" is just an excuse for your fatalism that gives you an excuse to not put forth the effort to actually do it. It's not the 1940s anymore, we're not chucking surplus WWII bombs at lava tubes anymore. Lava diversion is a science and is routinely effectively done. There are limits, but you were nowhere near said limits for sites far from the vents. There are costs, but they are nowhere near the costs that you paid by refusing to act.

Actual advice: if you just want to rant about something, do it in your diary. You're just wasting your time here. I responded to a specific statement with a specific reply and you clearly want to vent your anger about something related but markedly different. You don't even realize that with your lobbing of ad hominem shots my way and attacking straw facsimiles of my stance you're actually driving away a potential ally.

It's not healthy to point your anger outwards to strangers on the internet. I know you're feeling all righteous about your stance, but trust me that you'll feel much better if you let that go and objectively look at what was said in this thread. It leads to a much more reasonable and rational stance and a state of mind that can work towards actual solutions rather than "Burn and kill everything that has to do with AI!!".

I take native Hawaiian religious objections seriously. These are people who take a fatalistic "Pele will take what she wants, it's pointless to try to stop her" attitude toward lava flows running over their houses that seems utterly insane here in Iceland. We'll buy up every available water pump on the international market and walk on active-flowing lava fields to save a harbour for a couple thousand people. We'll keep running tourist sites right next to a volcano that erupts every couple months by building multi-story-high berms around it with giant bulldozers and cooling anything that tries to overtop to make the berms even higher. And it totally works . But Hawaiians will sit back and watch incredibly slow-flowing flows with easy diversion paths take out everything they hold dear. At best they'll point to some primitive failed attempts in like the 1940s as a reason to not try, but then when pressed, it often comes back to: "Pele will take what she wants to take."

Another example: geothermal drilling on the Big Island. Massive protests. Massive resistance, way beyond the token NIMBY resistance here. Meanwhile Hawaii continues to generate most of its electricity from oil, at great cost. Hawaii is the only other place (outside of Iceland) to have accidentally drilled into a magma chamber. In Hawaii they treated it as a major incident and immediately shut down the well. When we did it? Our reaction was, "WOW, we can produce REALLY hot steam from THIS well!", made it into a production well, and started planning to drill more.

I guess one major difference here is that in the early Icelandic cosmology, volcanoes weren't the product of a high-ranking creator goddess, but rather, Surtr, who was practically a demon and was fated to destroy the world. It's good to resist Surtr!

At least for me and many others I spoke to.

Go and use books to train AI.

Just don't fucking destroy them afterwards! Many of these are out of print, impossible to replace! How much of a douchebag do you have to be to destroy them ?

Except his complaint is not.

Yes, it literally was. The main public complaint of the weavers was that they spent their entire life learning their art, and then their bosses come in with a machine that they teach to replicate the patterns that they developed, churn out cheap "slop" versions of them, and fire them.

And here we're talking about profits, despite their huge scaleup expenditure. Theirs and OpenAI's margins on serving inference are ~40%.

It's almost impossible for a company undergoing a massive scaleup rate to turn a profit, let alone growing 10X annualized for 3 1/2 years running, but Anthropic pulled it off.

No matter what the humidity, at 42.5 degrees you are cooked. It's only going to get worse too.

Apple will keep jacking up prices too, due to AI taking all the RAM and flash.

But isn't this a massive upheaval and cost for you? Switching from managing Chromebooks to Macbooks, switching software suites, dealing with all the different IT problems that arise from MacOS etc?

You are so wrong. The country I live in now has it. It's not called the same, but it amounts to the same. Near impossible to sue the police here.

I'm pretty sure most countries have something similar on the books.

Yes, you're confusing the tool for the application. Remember that the post I was initially responding to was specifically separating AI tools by kind, NOT by application. Read darkain's post again, then call me autistically pedantic again or apologize.

But I understand that you're disappointed in how the future turned out. I am too. Not because of the advances in AI and technology, though. But because the current set of humans and especially those in power (whether through money or politics) seem very clearly woefully inadequate and incompetent in moving past greed, selfishness, short-sightedness, and primitive behavior to make the world better, more just, kind, and peaceful.

OK, so what is the bad kind of AI?
Image generators? Video generators? Audio generators? Text generators?

Which kind of AI is "shitty slop"?

I think you're making a category mistake.

Thanks for this addition.

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree here. Already, "data centers" have become "AI data centers" and many many people are waving their pitchforks around claiming that "data centers" add nothing of value and "suck up all our water" (even though golf courses and many other luxuries use and will be using orders of magnitude more water than data centers).

In a way it is surprising that classic xenophobia is still going so strong, but the blind hatred for AI simply because it is foreign to most humans is definitely growing fast. It'll really ramp up with stable embodiment for AI. A face people can detest or preferably a physical body they can destroy.

Having said that I do agree with you that there is a big chunk of "it's mostly benefiting the rich or intended to do so" present and that a proper redistribution of wealth via for instance UBI would make things a lot better for a lot of people.