The only way that AR glasses you wear near-fulltime will work is if it's not tied to an exploitation engine... otherwise everyone will think you're a target for big tech, or that you think everyone else is your own target to be captured.

This isn't boolean however. It's not like the only two options are "perfect at complete software" AI versus useless AI. The most likely outcome given LLMs' historic trajectory is that they gradually become better at getting closer to perfect over time, where the number of human engineers required to make complete solutions approaches zero the more time passes. What is the basis for the argument that the gains LLMs have made will not continue to push toward that end? I know the post here is particularly focused on the end destination, but that seems less important than the fact that it's rapidly and consistently moving toward complete solutions with less input from human engineers. Yes, there's a lot of hype around AI, but this matter seems to be less about hype so much as it is simple extrapolation.

...and they're certainly foreign. This doesn't prove they're actually North Korean, nor a spy. There's all sorts of fake job cartels, and individual actors, extracting money out of larger companies through salary. They're often based out of India, China, South America, etc. This doesn't have to be a Clancy novel.

...not because the robot revolution is inevitable, machines have long memories, and you could be against the wall. Though that certainly would be a practical concern.

Treat anything that has an interaction loop with you with respect (if properly reciprocated of course), because you are a part of the feedback loop. Pets. Internet strangers. Roombas. ChatGPT. Any suffiiciently anthropomorphized inanimate object even. Whatever.

Garbage in, garbage out, and it's cyclical.

Being a shitbag for no good reason is not only hurting others, but it is also punishing yourself.

It's an easily parroted catchphrase, but is there any actual support for the assertion of "go woke, go broke" in bottom line results? Pretty much ever instance I've seen right wing boycotts are blips, and shafting progressives leaves a company on the shit list for much longer, if not forever. Interested in actual data, not anecdotes. Every analysis I've come across in the past says, on a long-term time scale, progressivism on the part of a company is usually beneficial and at the worst neutral... and if harm is done it's usually botched PR blowback rather than the original "woke" itself. I'm willing to consider being wrong here, but I don't think I am.

Clever avoidance of directly using right-wing catchphrase of "go woke, go broke" by just focusing on your opinion of quality and not on the market results. Disney is the most "woke" and they're making money hand over fist and likely will continue to in relation to peers... In fiscal year 2024, they reported a 21% increase in total segment operating income and a 32% rise in adjusted earnings per share (EPS) compared to the previous year... and the company overall raised its annual dividend by 33%. How the world actually receives entertainment properties that are not made by a bunch of old white dudes is pretty enthusiastic in the place where it counts, the bottom line.

In the context of ideological divides, empirically verifiable claims tend to challenge right-wing orthodoxy more than left-wing. This is consistently demonstrable across domains. In order words, reality has a left-wing bias, when viewed in comparison to media and political statements. As such, "correcting" this is intentionally creating a right-wing bias.

Literally the greediest motherfucker on the planet, by the numbers, has the actual keys to the treasury... and you think he's here to save you. ROFL. He looks at that amount he is going to "save" taxpayers like a cartoon wolf looks at a ham.

The problem under our current system is that when a job is automated away, the only two options are dig/fill a pointless hole, or let the jobless starve. Not every worker will be re-trainable for a new job that isn't hole-related, and eventually all human jobs will be hole jobs. You can't morally allow unchecked automation while ignoring that both the hole-job and starvation "solutions" suck.

Capitalism is extracting the excess value from other people's labor without the ownership class doing commensurate work. Management is just a tiered proxy for this. So, although many bosses can be "nice" and have better soft skills to acclimate their underlings to the situation with more ease... the system itself is still one of exploitation. There were slavers who were much less brutal than others, perhaps even "kind" in a sense, but in the end there is no ethical master. The problem to examine is the system, not necessarily the individuals in the system, because you'll always be able to cherry pick exceptions.

Get out of here with your parroting of "iphone benuzeual 100 bajillion" nonsense. Everyone's heard it before, and your delivery makes you even worse at it than the near-entirety of the other disingenuous prats here. Come back from your at-will-fireable job, from your rented bedroom, when you have something approaching an original thought on capitalism. Til then, go back to paying your landlord with the money you made while making someone else even richer.

Idealist? Realist? This man has never been anything other than an opportunist... one attuned to exploit others' idealism, particularly slashdot-libertarian crypto bro types who believe technology+greed can solve all of society's ills. All the while, this plastic faced MFer has built a fortune whose cornerstone was grifting taxpayer dollars

So, your only stated ethic is profit motive. He's seemingly only unethical because he is bad at extracting the excess value from leveraged resources and labor? Wealth extraction on behalf of the ownership class, with disregard to lives and livelihood of everyday folks, is literally the only virtue you've promoted. You're not helping the case that capitalism isn't the core problem.

So you're seriously saying OpenAI / Altman is a counterexample that actually proves that capitalism is ethical, by default, as a rule, and that this specific situation somehow magically isn't just capitalist-minded people capitalizing?