Their prentation was cool to watch but it didn't mention the number of video cards that it takes to run and the power bill. I would love to know what those numbers are.

It would be very cool if demand for this kind of ultra-complex simulation leads to amazing hardware innovation - but at the moment its looking like its just about buying vast numbers of video cards instead of building better ones. Maybe the market will eventually create really great new hardware based on this demand that can cheaply run amazing real life simulations all day- or maybe by that time people will decide this is all too expensive and not generating enough value and simply shut these ai systems down.

Was that during the middle ages?

The rich didn't have consumers to worry about during most of human history - like consider the middle ages. The rich owned the land and the people payed them for the privilege of farming it. A special class of artisans served the rich and didn't do much with the peasants. The peasants only existed to labor on the land for the benefit of the rich because farming used to be a lot of work.

Sometimes there wasn't enough food and the peasants rose up to overthrow the rich. How many times did they succeed? 0.

That is crazy. I can't believe nothing really horrendous has come of this practice (that I know of).

I hear about people losing access to their coinbase accounts, or getting them drained all the time, but actual banks - I never hear of that happening.

That's why you go to theaters - nobody wants a trashbag full of piss in their own house when they go to the bathroom in the middle of a film.

I haven't yet seen any jobs created by fixing ai screw ups. Is ai creating bad code, messing up filing systems, creating massive lawsuits from faulty paperwork, etc as we speek? I bet it is! I anticipate fixing ai screwups will be a thing in the future - if not already. Those jobs do not sound like fun ones to do though.

Yeah, its alarming because, unlike a lot of the hype men, Powell is pretty trustworthy and respectable so if he's worried I feel like I should be too.

Gulp.

There are a few trains of thought about ai and jobs that I've noticed:

1. Nah its mostly all hype and not many jobs will be lost.
2. Oh yeah, jobs will be lost but that's cool because we'll make new jobs!! (insert adage about horses and tractors or whatever).
3. Yes, there will now be permanantly more unemployment. But that's cool because society will take care of everyone with things like UBI
4. There will now be permanantly more unemployment - and society is too disfuntional to take care of people so there will just be a lot of poor, desperate people while the owners of the AI get super rich and the middle class will disappear.
5. Yeah. 4 is true BUT China will totally do it if we don't so we have to embrace ai.

I feel like 1 or 4 are the most likely things here myself. I think people who believe society has always adjused to unemployment causes by technological change by creating new jobs are missing some big chunks of the history of economics and world-wide trade.

My understanding is that musk normalized lying to shareholders and getting away with it. The shareholders discovered that if he made really big lies the stock went up enormously, and they liked that. It took years for other ceos to catch on but now its generally considered the thing a really successful buisness leader ought to do. Examples of promising things that the ceos almost certainly know are not going to happen soon include

Michael Saylor says a BTC will be worth $5 million
Mark Zuckerburg saying digital goods (nfts) will soon be a huge part of the economy
Uber saying that soon nobody will own cars because of them

...make this meatball. It is our purpose.

I mean if you knew what you were getting and weren't expecting the normal airline experiance it was great.

In fact I find a lot of the normal airline experiance annoying and preferred Frontier for just being a simple transport from point A to point B without any bs. It felt quicker and more streamlined, with less distracting chatter from flight attendents, less people fussing with their stupid airplane food, and everyone carried less luggage so deplaning was faster. It was great.

Think of it this way:

Instead of Stack Overflow, we are talking about a church, another "public space". The church would like people to be quiet and not talk on cellphones during the service.
Main AC, a free speech hero, decides not to follow their commie rules of censorship and spends the entire service loudly talking on his phone. When they tell him to stop he says they are anti-free speech and censoring him and he pressures them to get rid of all their rules about people being loud in church.

I would argue that maybe he's impinging on their freedom, not the opposite.

I'm not defending censorship, I'm defending free speach against folks who demand their speach trumps others.

my understanding was that your previous post had contradictory ideas. I don't think you ever said they don't have the right to do anything, but you implied that it was morally against free speach to moderate in the way they wanted to. In other words:

1. That SO's moderation was against the principles of free speech .
2. But the principles of free speach, as I understand them, say that part of that is the freedom to moderate speech in your private space.
3. Therefore moderation was not against the principles of free speech .

Really ,what you are saying is you don't agree with their moderation and you don't want to be there. This has nothing to do with free speech. The fact that you think it does means that you just want certain kinds of speech to trump other kinds, which is actually anti-free speech.

I'm a bit confused here. If you love freedom of speech so much why can't SO, a private entity, have the freedom to decide what kind of speech happens on it?

And is it not impinging on their freedom of speech to insist you have a god given right to decide how it ought to be on their platform?

All you guys who are always crowing about your freedom of speech don't seem to realize that restricting other people's right to decide how to have conversational rules in their own private paces might actually be anti-free-speech.

It sounds more like you didn't like their policies about speech so you left, which is entirely within your rights but has nothing to do with your right to have freedom of speech.

A lot of "ideas people" these days really have the same idea "Something.. it doesn't matter what it is really, whatever... that will make me enourmously rich" and investors love that idea and give them money because they'll get rich too, right? And they do because there's a greater fool investor who will buy their shares!

The real idea is making a ton of money, not in actually doing anything.

Full self driving is one of these things, I've never heard of anyone who is excited about it besides investors. A lot of the AI hype is really this idea too. NFTs, obviously. Bitcoin is a great example... the list is long and getting bigger all the time.