You understand
A) no actual rare or precious books have been proved to have been destroyed, right?
B) millions of books are destroyed every single day. Millions. And that processing has nothing to do with ai. It has been true for decades.
Your rage about this is either misinformed, or dishonest.
Either way, maybe think about that.
Is it irony, complaining about China outstripping US space tech on a US "tech focused site" where the single technically capable company reasonably able to outmatch the Chinese is deeply and routinely despised here because it's founder/owner (now) associates with the "wrong" political side?
I wonder if there's a parable here about priorities?
a "Newer TomorrowLand".
Internal documents list it as, "Todayland".
You can't do everything in 2 days. You can get worn out in 2 days though.
Worst pick-up line ever.
Don't know if it's actually true, but people have posted (elsewhere) that it's less expensive to buy round-trip tickets to Japan and and spend a week at Tokyo Disneyland.
I suspect most of the amplification of right wing noise has something to do with the left wingishness of the complainers.
My stance comes from seeing it from the other side. I'm comfortably right of center and my previous experience with Twitter (x is a stupid name) is that it absolutely was a left wing echo chamber. It indeed was rather calmer because of the aggressive pruning of any conservative voices.*
I believe the algo serves you aggressively oppositional views to spur contrary posting and raise engagement. It's a rather simplistic but effective tactic. If you're leftish, you get served the worst of the right, along with a strong current of fringe left views to affirm you are "reasonably left, not like those crazies". If you're conservative you get the worst of the left, and a current of toxic right wing enough to affirm that you're not that far right.
My "for you" feed is exclusively militant socialists, feminists, pro trans activists, leftist local politicians (not hard to find as I'm in MN) all just ceaselessly toxic people.
My "following" is like wise a cess pool of right wing commenters, the worst of the worst shouting all sorts of racist, anti women nonsense, interspersed with occasionally interesting comments about ttrpg games and science subjects that are actually interesting.
I joke that "for you" is comments entirely from people I completely disagree with and despise. "Following" is only *mostly* people I disagree with and despise.
(I actually "follow" only maybe a dozen people in science, tech, ttrpg gaming, and work-related subjects. No politics, no dogmatics of either side. Certainly no politicians.)
As a result, I spend almost no time on Twitter
*(Nota bene to this day I still have a banned account from just before musk's takeover for a post in a David Axelrod thread, observing that transsexual strippers & burlesque dancers seemed to militantly insist on the right to dance in front of children to "express themselves" but I'd failed to see any comparable insistence to dancing in front of the elderly.)
About the most succinct, blather free summary I've seen.
Unfortunately, and definitely not to credit the legions of ai snake-oil sales going on, Jevons paradox probably means that rather than ai ushering in some sort of low-work utopia, we'll more likely indeed just figure out how to use it properly and end up back at 40 hour work weeks with (likely) an explosion of increased productivity.
I don't know how we get there personally but that's the sort of blindness we have before paradigms genuinely change, like the coming of the Internet.
New here? Slashdot has been suffused with politics for two decades, as tech stories are largely replaced with a feed that's more and more like the usual social media cesspool of left and right wing dogmatics shutting at each other.
When a candidate is granted a professorship based on race, and then militantly (irrationally) defended again largely based on race, how is nobody supposed to bring that up?
Maybe just having the most money isn't his Paramount concern
The UC Berkeley research found that the workload of tech employees was expanded in part because of the need to constantly check the output of AI tools.
It takes effort to clean up someone else's slop, even, or especially, AI slop, sometimes more effort than simply doing it yourself.
the product they are building is among the "most important technologies in history."
That will actually be for history to decide.
freeing humans for more interesting and specialized work
Translation to normal speech: making humans unemployed, homeless, and hungry without health care or a social safety net in order to increase corporate wealth.
So, the first 2/3 of Elysium
That's the opposite of equity, which attempts to provide equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity.
Merriam Webster defines equity as:
fairness or justice in the way people are treated
often, specifically : freedom from disparities in the way people of different races, genders, etc. are treated
The Oxford Review expands on that and defines it as follows:
Equity refers to the principle of fairness, justice, and impartiality. Unlike equality, which emphasises treating everyone the same, equity recognises that people have different needs and challenges. Therefore, it involves providing resources and opportunities in ways that level the playing field for all individuals, especially those from historically disadvantaged or underrepresented groups. The goal of equity is to ensure that all individuals have the necessary tools and support to succeed, based on their unique circumstances and needs.
DEI is systematic racism that blindly promotes minorities at the expense of white people, especially straight, white men.
Sure, 'cause white men have historically had such a tough time finding employment and advancement over people who aren't.
Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.
