Whenever I see these articles, I feel like it’s part of OpenAI’s marketing strategy to use the fear-based media to pump up the sense of how revolutionary their tech is. Kinda like how they marketed GPT-4o by openly tying it in to the movie Her, as if ChatGPT is gonna replace relationships. They’re clearly very aware of what gets attention and going for that.
Just like the cognitive tests. No one asked him how he did on the cognitive tests, heck no one can find out how he actually did thanks to HIPAA. But he obvously has no understanding of that so he thinks he needs to get ahead of the story of how terribly he did on the cognitive tests.
support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation.
So you’re pro-Russian in the temporary, tactical sense, in the context of imperialist liberation. And you would be pro-Putin too, but for not believing in great man theory.
I can think of several, but it’s so cringe to say any of them. There’s a disdain for do-gooders in all societies, but especially American society. Which means that it’s just not cool to admire someone who is simply a good person.
Well Russia is part of that fossil fuel industry too, and they also hire lobbyists to push fossil fuels
Then why is Israel helping them? It is, after all, quite true that Israel has refused to stop settlement activity in the West Bank. Seems like a great way to cause protests, and then responding with a shoot first, ask questions later mentality will lead to a lot of martyrs. Are you accusing the Israeli government of being in league with Hamas?
deleted by creator
To steel man the downvoters, maybe there are other solutions besides killing off every business that can’t afford to comply with copyright. After all, isn’t the whole point of copyright to enable the capitalist exploitation of information?
Ok so what do I short and when?
She’s not anti-war if she’s supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She’s anti-fighting back.
To predict what jobs AI will replace, you need to know both of the following:
This guy has an MA in industrial engineering and an MBA, and has been in business his whole career. He has no knowledge of psychology and whatever knowledge of AI that he’s picked up on the side as part of his work.
He’s not the guy to ask. And yet, I feel like this is the only kind of guy anyone asks.
Leaders in tech have to be good at raising money from rich investors, lenders, etc… Most of these people aren’t tech people. They’re hedge fund managers, bankers, or just people with lots of money. So consider the following 2 strategies:
Strategy A: Be realistic. Explain the positives and the negatives. The tech looks promising, but the future is uncertain. It’s a risky investment that could pay off massively, but it probably won’t. You the CEO know a lot about the topic, but you’re still just a guy, not a miracle worker.
Strategy B: Just focus on the plus side. It will succeed, and it’ll succeed way more than anyone expects. Not only that, you the CEO are an unstoppable hardworking galaxy brain genius who sleeps on the factory floor. They should be so lucky to get to invest in your company.
Which of these is more likely to work with investors who don’t know tech? And which is most likely to be the strategy chosen by leaders who are narcissistic and deceitful? The answer is the same.
Supreme court: “To ensure that babies are put in their place, former presidents must enjoy total infant punting immunity.”
Pressed on whether the court has an obligation to put the country on a more “moral path,” Roberts turns the tables on his questioner: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” He argues instead: “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” Presented with the claim that America is a “Christian nation” and that the Supreme Court should be “guiding us in that path,” Roberts again disagrees, citing the perspectives of “Jewish and Muslim friends,” before asserting, “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”
I know John Roberts has made some terrible rulings, but he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution. Unfortunately he’s the exact kind of Justice the Trump-era GOP tries to avoid choosing, because he puts the Constitution above Trump.
That’s all the Times is gonna give us? One sentence of a memo relating to one of the most questionable Supreme Court decisions of all time? The voters should know everything about how they got to this decision.