I think that's an open question. We can look at history and see how capitalism has evolved over the years. Historians can argue about whether it was inevitable for it to evolve the way it did. I'm sure there are good arguments on both sides. But ultimately it's an academic question. Capitalism did evolve in a particular way, and it's very different today from what it was 50 years ago.

He has a great point. Instead of cutting back on AI, we can start killing humans. They're completely interchangeable, after all. With more AI we won't "need" as many humans, so let's just eliminate them. Think of all the resources we'll free up to build more data centers!

All forms of generative AI, not just code generators, are most useful when the answer doesn't need to be right. You get an answer quickly. Often it will be a useful answer but not always. If there's an objective standard for what's correct, it won't always match that standard. Sometimes that's ok. If you're generating pictures to use as clip art, or searching for information that you'll double check, or creating a game for fun, mistakes aren't too important. But you really don't want your bank running on software that works that way.

I'd don't know if we'll ever overcome that limitation, at least not with the current approach to AI. Some other problems will be easier to fix. For example, current AI code generators work for small projects but fall apart when the code base gets too big. That's improving with time and will keep improving. It just takes bigger models with bigger context windows.

But the lack of correctness guarantees may be inherent to the whole approach. It requires a rigorous process where every step is provably correct. That's very different from how current models work.

I think you're confused about who you're replying to. You quoted parts of my post, but your reply doesn't seem to have much to do with what I said.

I'm not getting mad at anything. I began, "I don't think this is true," and then cited some articles that contradict it. I'm not sure how you would interpret that as getting mad.

The passages I quoted discussed current use (or rather, recent past use in 2023 and 2024). The full articles have much much more detail about current use. Don't take my word for it. Look and see for yourself.

I don't know who you're quoting, but it's not me. I think you're mixing up your responses to different posts.

See my reply to Zak3056. The case you cite is from almost a full century after the Bill of Rights was written. Earlier cases interpreted it differently.

Like much of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment is modeled after the Virginia Declaration of Rights. It directly copies language from it: "a well regulated militia", "a free state". It didn't need to define what those terms meant. Everyone understood that when the second amendment used those words, they meant the same thing as in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Today not many people remember the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Instead they invent their own definitions to make the second amendment mean whatever they want it to.

Here is the text the second amendment is modeled after.

The main issues it's concerned with are that the military should be subordinate to the civil government, and that peace time law enforcement should be a civil function (as it traditionally was in the colonies), not a military function (as the British army had made it).

Like the second amendment, it's concerned with a "well regulated militia" composed of people "trained to arms". It isn't about random people carrying guns for their own use. That interpretation came later.

Note the anachronism that it assumes a militia will be composed of "the body of the people". At that time, professional police hadn't been invented. Serving in a militia was like serving on a jury. Most people did it (or at least, most people who were white and male), but it wasn't a full time job. You got called on as needed. The idea of having a small number of people do law enforcement as a full time job came later.

That was in 1857, 66 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. It was a break from earlier cases, for example Aymette v. State which held that the right to bear arms is only for the common defense.

They would have been fine with it. The second amendment guarantees states the right to form armed militias (or to put it in modern terms, armed police forces). It wasn't intended to give every individual the right to own guns for their own private use. That's a modern reinterpretation.

That's just completely false. Gun manufacturing is a highly regulated industry.

I don't think this is true. You didn't cite any sources for your claims, so I went searching to see what I could find. This article from MIT Technology Review goes into a lot of detail about AI energy use. Here's a relevant passage.

This article also gives some detailed numbers:

AI is not a "small fraction" of data center use. It's the dominant force driving a huge increase in power consumption.

If you don't like their terminology, let's say "consumer AI" to avoid the technical distinction of what is or isn't a generative model. The distinction they make is completely valid. The rise of consumer AI products like chatbots and image generators is new and very different from the older traditional applications. Those products are driving the majority of growth in AI power use. They also provide zero climate benefit. The claimed sources of emissions reductions do not come from these consumer products.

Neither one. They made a sensible choice of buses, but due to a battery recall, they currently aren't allowed to charge them inside. It's right there in the summary. Once the recall is over and they can start charging inside, this whole issue will disappear.

Read what you just wrote:

A battery recall does not equal incompetence or fraud from the people who bought them. That's just a blatantly partisan shill for the oil industry trying to push an agenda. A battery recall means the product turned out to have a manufacturing defect that the manufacturer is now addressing. Once it's fixed, they'll be able to charge the buses in a garage, which is presumably what they intended from the start, and the problem will go away.

When it appears in my grocery, then tell me it's something I can do. I'd gladly try it, but I've never yet had the chance.

Saying "nobody wants to eat it" when most people have never had a chance is false. I suspect the real reason states are banning it is because of pressure from the established companies that don't want competition. They're probably also behind this narrative that "nobody" wants their competitors' products.

The article gives no detail about how the method works. Reading between the lines and making some slightly informed but mostly speculative guesses, it probably assumes the music is AI generated. It isn't meant to be an AI detector. You give it a song that you know was created by AI, and it tries to figure out what training data went into making it.

If that's true, it would be interesting to give it human generated music. Would it tell you who the artist was most influenced by? Or would it focus more on irrelevant details like the model of guitar they're playing? But that's not what they're presenting it for.

People start using AI as a tool to supercharge their trolling? Don't worry, it won't put any trolls out of business. It just allows each troll to accomplish five times more!

I'm skeptical that this is actually an AI and not in fact a person trolling. That sounds exactly like what someone would do as a joke. One of the stranger elements of AI literacy these days is remembering that things claiming to be AI generated sometimes aren't. Often it's really a person just pretending.

This is so dishonest. Everyone pays for OpenAI's products. They force you to pay in indirect ways you can't avoid. If your electric rates have gone up, thank OpenAI. If you have to pay more for a new computer because memory has gotten so expensive, thank OpenAI. Not to mention the huge amounts of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere to power their data centers. Every single person subsidizes their products, whether they use those products or not, and then OpenAI pretends to be giving them away for free.