That’s what happens when you aren’t the (sole) paying customer.
That’s what happens when you aren’t the (sole) paying customer.
Comparing employees to citizens is absurd.
The more apt comparison is voting citizens compared to shareholders. They too get a vote.
I think anyone familiar with the laws of thermodynamics could have predicted this outcome.
1 can be solved with regulation or nationalization. Services online should be public services. Like school, police, roads. You can still have private alternatives too.
It’s funny that with all our technology, paper is still the most durable storage medium (under normal conditions) that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg.
Sophistication often creates fragility. The human mind marvels at sophistication naturally; appreciation for resilience usually only comes after that fragile thing has broken. Of course it’s too late by then.
All them young whipper snappers will continue to learn these life lessons the hard way, it seems.
This is not how patents work. At all.
For one, patent owners are generally more than happy to license their technology to integrators, and even competitors, if there is money to be made.
More importantly, patents cannot be used to get exclusivity on products. Rather, patents can only protect novel approaches to how a product is made or served.
The patent system is designed to protect R&D costs exclusively, not some get out of jail card for anti trust. Of course, the patent office isn’t perfect, the system does get abused in anti-competitive ways. But in the end, it’s rare that that results in less consumer choice, because of licensing deals.
LLMs == AGI was and continues to be a massive lie perpetuated by tech companies and investors that people still have not woken up to.
As both a scientist, and a carpenter, it’s a bunch of crap.
Most of the time**, judging involves determining the truth, and the critical analysis of the facts of a case.
The scientific method, at its core, is also a truth-seeking exercise, centered on the idea of failing to prove a theory wrong (“fail to reject the null hypothesis”). In lay terms, a successful scientists will proactively trial an idea against one or more opposing ideas. In doing so, a scientist takes the position of competing truths and systematically disproves them, because disproving bad ideas is easy. In a court of law, the same occurs when a piece of evidence is presented to counter an accusation or defense (like an alibi). Therefore, in both science, and in law, verdicts are achieved on the basis of “reasonable doubt”. Perfect proofs do not exist (yes, even in math, because of axioms).
**To be fair, there are different types of courts, with different functions. A supreme court will probably spend no time on examining evidence for example, where as traffic court will spend most of its time on evidence.
imagine their perfect house
No part of “imagining perfection” is found in the scientific method. This is some fictional view of how science actually works. If anything, it’s carpentry that involves “imagining perfection”, where a building plan is “perfection” and “imagining” is the boundary between the plan and the reality of trying to build to specification.
informed choice
The cookie popups that litter the modern web today are a great example why this is probably a bad idea.
It’s the usual suspects. More proof that tech isn’t inherently good or bad, it’s just bad people that use tech to amplify their awfulness.
Is “using” defined? Using it daily to get work done is very different from using it once a month out of curiosity or novelty.
“Should you have to pay for online privacy?”
This is the wrong question to ask. The obvious answer is no.
The real question to ask is: would you prefer to pay for an online service with currency, or with your private data?
The concrete won’t even be cured by the time they need em.
You are right, crypto has nothing to do with currency printing. And yes, the environmental side too is a problem (unless it is produced inline with recycled energy) But governments issuing currency is a relatively recent phenomenon. Historically, people traded de facto currencies and IOUs amongst themselves.
Bitcoin was conceived out of the 2008 financial crisis, as a direct response to big banks being bailed out. It’s literally written in Bitcoin’s Genesis block. The point of Bitcoin has always been to free people from the tyranny of big government AND big capital.
Crypto isn’t that popular in developed countries with functioning monetary systems… untill of course those big institutions fail. I am still quite surprised, this side of Bitcoin is rarely discussed on Lemmy, given how anticapitalist it is.
I get it libertarian, bad. And to some degree, there are a lot of problems there. But the extreme opposite ain’t that rosy either.
That has nothing to do with AI and is strictly a return policy matter. You can get a return in less than 2 minutes by speaking to a human at Home Depot.
Businesses choose to either prioritize customer experience, or not.
Oh look, more anticompetitive shenanigans.
Break Google up. Bring the full force of antitrust down on them.
Anything else is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.
Free speech? Handcuffs.
Insurrection? “Please, after you”.
American “freedom” is all talk and no substance.
Nothing is going to change until people die because of this shit.
What makes you say Brother printers are bad? I’ve had no complaints with them at all.
Did anyone stop to ask themselves if we even would want to watch AI videos?
Of course not.
I, and I suspect many other people, watch YouTube for the people in the videos and their experiences (or at least the illusion of that). Watching fake videos defeats the whole purpose.
YouAITube sounds like nothing more than a kaleidoscope with extra steps.