My first question was, why is this a target? This is terrorism and outside war rules (insane that we have rules for war instead of just not having it). Laws are only as good as their enforcement though.
Rhaedas
joined 2 years ago
You're correct on their limitations. That doesn't stop corporations from implementing them, sometimes as an extra tool, sometimes as a rash displacement of paid labor, and often without your last step, checking the results they output.
LLMs are a specialized tool, but CEOs are using it as a hammer where they see nails everywhere, and it has displaced some workers. A few have realized the mistake and backtracked, but they didn't necessarily put workers back. As per usual anytime there is displacement.
And for the record, while LLMs are technically under the general AI classification, they are not AI in the sense of what the term AI brings to the mind (AGI). But they have definitely been marketed as such because what started as AI research turned into a money grab that is still going on.
I blame the drive to use anything new before the competitor does and gets an advantage, added to worse and worse IT departments that don't really know what they're doing. There could be some companies that have a good IT that just get overruled, of course.
L
L L
M M
It's a pyramid scheme!
From a science pov it makes sense that it's something to pursue, even as just a renewable biofuel. Algae grows fast, it's where oil comes from, it's a biological "fix". It's perfect. Except it didn't work nearly as well as hoped.
I looked into it a long time ago as a "solution" to how to best pull carbon of out the air and sequester it. Algae farms over deep water areas, grown and culled and the dead carbon sunk deep to stay out of the loop. Sounds perfect, doesn't it?
But in both scenarios there are so many costs and variables to consider that are left out when proponents are selling it. Some are just the "forgotten" costs of running a process that pollutes on their own and take energy (that requires emissions too). Some are effects outside the process that damage the environment in other ways. And the costs and effects of feeding the algae itself, it just won't grow in a vat of water alone. So many things that change the net result. And with the case for fuel (which doesn't lock the carbon away so it's not a help to existing carbon in the air) assuming the fuel percentage per weight would be high enough to justify the rest of the costs. Which Exxon figured out it was not, while selling it as a miracle.
Climate Town just did a video on that topic. Exxon is apparently still running the PR commercials they made for it, but that project is all but dead because it wasn't going anywhere. Turns out doubling the output of not much doesn't get much.
Like the others have always been labeled afterwards.
I appreciate your points, and questioned even posting because one cannot cover the topic well enough in a discussion arena when there are volumes and papers galore about the issues, struggles, and morality of actions taken or not taken. I just think the simplistic attack on the founders because of slavery avoids any good that came from their actions.
And I should note that there are two parts to the founders - the ones who started the rebellion tried to united the colonies for independence, many losing everything they had, and the later ones who tried (several times) to put together a new form of government. This thread post is mainly attacking the latter really, but some of the survivors of the first were part of it too. Sometimes such attacks feel as if they border on some conspiracy level, where the founders had a grand plan that is still in place, when in fact it was more trial and error and changed many times in the past few centuries, some better than others. If anything (and I think this goes along with your last point) we've stagnated for too long and the rot that has been growing for a while (but not placed there purposefully as if some like to think).
The first part is true. We diverged from the path when old laws turned into sacred things that could not be debated, questioned, or changed. "Because we've always done it this way" is a dangerous mantra.
The second is feeding off the idea that because they didn't fix everything they were truly evil, yet many of the same problems existed before and after them to this very day. So we're not that much better and shouldn't judge with such absolutism. Hell, if they hadn't taken action in their time against oppression and tyranny it's hard to say what kind of world it would be now. I wonder what it was like to be at the edge of authoritarianism and have to make a choice between ignoring it, coping with it, embracing it, or fighting it. Good thing we don't have those problems now, huh?
Point is, if you're going to judge the past, be sure to judge it from its own relative viewpoint and not from centuries later, and definitely not in a few one liners that would make grade school history look like graduate school level. Slavery is a big one that's used against them a lot. What if some of them were full abolitionists that disrupted the Revolution efforts in order to push against colonies that used slaves much more than others? One, they wouldn't have succeeded, and two, the colonies wouldn't have united against a common foe.
And who knows, maybe that alternate future does work out after a century or two in some other way, but it's a far cry from just a simple "why didn't you stop slavery while you were at it?" There's reasons why some battles were chosen over others at that time. Some progress is better than none, or worse, regression.
"The Future is Now!"
also:
"We went too far."
That's the amazing part. No, not them saying they'd still vote for Trump. The fact that they can still talk with half their face gnawed off. I just wonder - was it because of the "any Democrat/leftist bad" mentality, was it because she was a woman, or what it because she was black? He said it wasn't anything said on the campaign, so it wasn't how badly they tanked her run. Maybe a combo?
If you're going to pull that dead end thinking, then how about trying to change the Republican party to help the American public? (I initially said "better", but we're starting at zero)
That has its own slope of discrimination from data due to being able to pay or not. If we determine a certain thing is okay ethically to screen for, anyone should be able to get it. Bad enough to have one gray area, we don't need a gradient of gray everywhere.