What I mean is, they are incentivized to reduce productivity. They are rewarded for it. If they are merely irrelevant to productivity, then they are not likely to be promoted, or have as good a position if they change companies.

Cool hypothesis, it has explanatory power. You might have figured it out.

If you don't get enough protein, you will get sick. Your body cannot synthesize essential proteins.

The trick is knowing how much is enough.

Part of his book's summary is absolutely scientifically false. Maybe he was misquoted, but it says this:

Protein is an essential nutritional component of a healthy diet. Being in protein deficiency is actually painful. But then if you read the quote from the actual book, it has this:

That part is true. The key to weight loss is calorie restriction over a sustained period (good rule of thumb: it takes three days of reduced calorie intake).

This part is absolutely false. Several proteins are essential amino acids, which means your body cannot synthesize them itself. They MUST be eaten. It doesn't matter how many calories are in your diet, if you do not eat those amino acids, you will have a protein deficiency.

Maybe this doctor is being misquoted, but you do need protein in your diet.

This is the true part:

Your body NEEDS protein. Once it has enough, any extra is evacuated through urine. The trick is figuring out how much you need.

It's not narcissism, it's entirely rational: we are all working because of self interest, not because we care about the company.

I like the commandline. I even open my browser by typing the command in the commandline. Who needs buttons?

But I admit almost everything I do these days (when I'm not programming) is done in a browser window. The need for local software is almost gone.

Ok, so this headline is a bit misleading.

Why did they ever trust the official story? Lying has been standard in SV for a long time. Obviously longer, but I can't find older links. A lot CxOs lie for no reason, in a transparent way that kills morale. I'm starting to think they intentionally kill morale.

Pointing out someone's logical fallacy is not ad hominem.

You are not trying to understand the situation, you are trying to show that what OpenAI did is correct. But there's no way to do that: they broke the law.

Maybe YOU would, but most people can't even be bothered to set their optimization flags correctly.

Insightful distillation.

That is not the definition of AI. Maybe next time don't post while high.

My assumption is you are an AI fanboy.

Your comment appears to be motivated reasoning.