Equally though many European chocolates can’t be called chocolate in the US because they have too much vegetable or seed oil in as a ratio to cocoa butter.
Enshittification happens in both places, they just toe the line of the rules in each.
Ideally, yes.
In practice, if investors think the stock price will be higher in the future, they buy.
Dividends are such a tiny amount compared to the value of the share, that in reality it’s all just speculation on how people are going to speculate.
That’s the problem with all politics. People don’t like the status quo and so vote for “not this” without considering the ill effects of what they’re voting for, or historical precedent. It’s how we ended up with Trump twice, it’s how we ended up with Brexit, and it’s not going away any time soon.
I think it’s more of a “how you use it” thing, but you’re definitely right that AI agents can’t design systems properly.
Some people I know have produced way more code, removed tech debt, and all without introducing any bugs since they started using AI. That’s because they’re not using it to do anything beyond their skillset, understand everything it’s doing, and are using it to catch mistakes they otherwise would have made. Other people are using it without reviewing the output, or are using it to try and do things beyond their skillset, and that’s how you end up with infinite tech debt and a whole host of bugs.
Personally I’ve recently started heavily using the AI code review bot we have at our company, both for my own code and other people’s. While 50% of what it says is hallucination or wrong, that’s not an issue because I know it’s wrong or a hallucination so can just tell it no and to focus on other things, like catching bugs or issues that most reviewers would just glance past, and also gives you a rubber duck that talks back.
Same in English…
Can’t, won’t, you’dn’t’ve, and if we get into dialects then you get things like owt (anything), nowt (nothing), ont (on the) and int (in the).
I mean it’s also kind of true though…
AI is taking some jobs, in situations where the limiting factor is the rate at which work can be done rather than the skills required to do it. Say you have five people in PR, of which three are responsible for trawling through sources to find out what’s actually being said about the company, and two are responsible for writing press releases. The jobs of two of the people trawling through sources could be replaced with AI, as the limiting factor is the amount of posts, documents and stories you can read. While you’d still need an overseer to fact check and collate, that sort of work can be done much faster than actually reading and finding sources. If the company also lays off one of the people responsible for writing press releases, however, that would be unrelated to AI as that sort of job isn’t replaceable by AI (right now at least) due to the majority of the work being something that probabilistic models just aren’t correct enough to do, so that’d be an unrelated layoff being blamed on AI, even if whoever orders it genuinely believes that AI has replaced the job.
I mean one of those faces consequences for its actions if it kills a protester, the other less so
I think you’re underselling just how evil he was…
They found lots of bones from women and girls when excavating the torture chamber beneath his former mansion, and Stalin distrusted him so much that he dropped everything when he learnt his daughter was alone with Beria.
Most people in this thread were either evil in their career, or in their personal lives, but Beria managed to excel separately in both.
Worse is relative, a proportion of the requirement increase will be due to worse code, but much more will be for features to make the software more accessible to more people, and adding features without needing to remove old ones, neither of which are a bad thing, otherwise everything would be a command line tool that removes options every few months and only has one way to use it
Sure, but corporations which keep profits up by providing a good service that people are willing to pay for should be celebrated and rewarded over those which keep them up by wringing every last penny out of you while simultaneously degrading their service.
AI image generation is amazing for replacing stock photos, and not bad at replacing clipart and porn images.
AI video generation is ok at replacing very simple videos without continuity or physics, but their only real applications are for spreading misinformation or mindless scrolling, there’s just no real way to get anyone to pay for them.
That’s aside from the fact that sora could’ve been great for generating generic stock footage/b-roll, but the way they implemented it was to generate a script, then audio, then video, which meant that it really struggled to generate anything without a focal point, ie what it would actually be useful for.
It’s fundamentally hard for AI to make things dirty.
It can do messy, but it’s based on denoising, and it’s very hard to distinguish a layer of dust or grime from noise, so unless some new technology comes up we’re still going to have that as an indicator well after scale and limbs are fixed.
Twitch is more of a parasocial website in most cases though, unless you’re watching exceptionally small streamers
Everyone has a different definition, but yeah generally free speech in an ideal sense extends to just before you start causing what a reasonable person would concern harm to someone.
There’s a difference between intelligence and poor upbringing though. 500 years ago even the smartest person alive probably believed the first three of them, because anyone who said otherwise was crazy, and all the authority figures were saying it was objective fact. If you raise someone today from childhood, cut off from a lot of external influence, then regardless of how smart they are they’ll probably still lean towards believing them. Brains are weird, and the ability to process information, solve problems, remember things, and question things don’t necessarily correlate as well as you’d expect.