The fact is, human beings cannot control their greed in the presence of surplus. So, it's just as bad to build things that are exceptionally good and stimulating that greed as it is to take advantage of them. Silicon Valley building stuff is a mistake that should be rectified. It is akin to allowing a toddler to play with a gun. All those who contribute to AI are just as guilty as such a person and are enemies of humanity.

Coffee from a moka tastes burned. Some people like it, but it's almost impossible to avoid the water from becoming too hot.

I'd be a very happy person if all AI companies were ruined to the point of bankruptcy and their CEOs sent to prison for life.

Does this take into account the immense amount of energy demanded from AI companies?

> I think it's too miserable and unpleasant a thing for anyone around here to be willing to think about. The idea that Civilization does not progress on a line and does not always improve.

I am perfectly fine thinking about it, and I do think that after studying the topic for a long time, civilization is in a decline in the sense that life isn't really getting better for more people. I mean, it's not really a logical consequence that just because some technology has made life better, that continued innovation will always improve things. After all, the power of a tool is proportional to its potential for misuse, and the probability of misuse is proportional to the complexity of the society. So I think it's actually quite likely to experience severe decline with the invention of AI.

Personally, I think Ted Kaczynski was quite right.

...is it a good thing? Can we even handle this rapid rate of new software, a lot of which will be used for highly commercial purposes? The question is not whether AI makes programmers more efficient, but whether it's actually a good thing.

The default aspect ratio for all ILC cameras except micro four thirds is 3:2. Of course, I would never use IG anyway.

Absolutely agree. Furthermore, I see the "democratization" of art to low-effort stuff that anyone can make to be a bad thing. It's not art in my opinion: it's amusement, shallow entertainment, and strengthens the culture of shallowness that pervades advanced western civilization. It is the promotion of the fast-food version of art that just makes everything worse in my opinion.

I think it would be the perfect karma if programming jobs dried up considering they are the ones that invented this garbage.

Whoa have you even been to university? There are scholarships just for women, even job positions that are women-only. And women in STEM? The ones that do make it are definitely treated as special. Maybe such things are designed to bridge the gap and it makes sense, but it's not very encouraging to men either whether it's rational or not.

That if protests are strong enough, they can end certain things. If everyone now were extremely vociferous against AI, then we truly would have a better world.

But we're also responsible. Everyone using AI for their own benefit is responsible. I take a AI-free approach and don't use AI for that reason. If you use AI or play with it, then you are part of the problem.

The main thing this ignores is that in a healthy society, art is used not just for visual stimulation but also for communication between human beings. AI art may have the former, but it will never have the latter. If AI visual art becomes more appealing, it only shows the sick nature of modern society.

This is an example that shows that political violence in the modern-day does not have to be messy or chaotic. I think people en masse do have a general sense of "fair" and when one person REALLY crosses the line (Thompson), and that's why they are supporting Mangione.

Scientists don't get paid for the papers. Editors don't get paid. The public pays for most of the research. Regardless of the law, natural law dictates that it belongs to the public.