Why assume AI is to blame, and not global macroeconomic factors (eg. Trump)?

We've seen no evidence at all that AI has even come close to increasing productivity by 70%, which means AI can't be responsible for this entire decline.

He's right, but that's true about everything. The rich and powerful use their wealth and influence to stay rich and powerful ... with AI, or with anything else. It's how the world works.

Your math sucks. Let's say you weigh 200 pounds, which (per the above) means you need a maximum of 0.73g * 200 = 146 grams of protein.

According to Google, chicken has 123g of protein per pound ... which means that at 200 lbs. a person only needs about 1.15 lbs. of chicken to hit the daily max.

More like Google Glass's anemic second cousin.

Calling these things AI salespeople doesn't really get it right. They're livestreaming sales performers, which is to say they're more the equivalent of the talking heads on the Home Shopping Network.

And quite frankly, that seems like a pretty low bar: if you've ever watched the HSN, you'd be forgiven for thinking "they could replace these people with robots".

You really think you can measure the quality of a movie from a trailer? Like, you really believe that? Or do you just not care if you watch horrible movies?

Don't forget The Fisher King! It's an underrated gem from Terry Gilliam and Robin Williams, but it's not exactly a comedy.

... and roughly half are bots.

Meh, all social media (and remember: far more people get their news from social media than Google News) is already a giant echo chamber.

I see this less as "Google betraying mankind" and more as "Google begrudgingly doing what every other site already does".

This guy gets it: IP is an imaginary concept! It should exist only as long as it benefits society ... but our IP laws have been corrupted to only serve the needs of a corporations.

Pretending that you should keep following made-up rules, that don't benefit anyone except the ultra-rich, as if it was some kind of moral concern, is completely idiotic.

Maybe I'm just bad at math (and/or English), but to me, 44% doesn't translate as "little to no direct competition" ... it translates as "almost half".

You seem to think people that tall are common.

In Argentina, someone tall enough to see over a 6' 5" wall without standing on their toes (ie. someone 6' 8" or higher; you can't see from your forehead) is in the 99.998th percentile (https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country).

If 99.998% of the population cannot see over the guy's wall (without being a peeper), I think it does in fact afford privacy.

"because he is Canadian and no one can prosecute him in the U.S., since Taiwan and the U.S. don't have extradition with each other."

If he's Canadian, what does Taiwan have to do with it? Did someone leave out the part where he fled to Taiwan?

Yeah, it's like believing Disney when they changed the copyright law to make copyrights last (nearly) forever.

On some level, yes, if an author's book is worth $X, then in theory if you extend the copyright on it, it will now be worth $X + $Y. If you just stop thinking right there, you think "copyrights are good for authors" and side with Disney.

But when you look at the reality, the vast vast majority of authors will never see a single extra penny from the copyright extension. It's only the Disneys of the world that benefit, and they do so at a cost of stifling creativity for everyone else.

Same deal here: I guarantee you 99%+ of music artists are not making any more money as a result of these deals.

... I can't wait for my check for $3.46 to arrive in two years!