That’s honestly probably a good sign. It means we’ve now come to a point in scientific achievement where that is a genuine possibility that we consider.

Right? How about neither option? How about Authoritarianism is bad, regardless of who’s doing it?

Precisely. Just ask Naomi Wu (SexyCyborg) how much she enjoys the surveillance state, how much she enjoyed being disappeared for a few months, how much she enjoys being told not to do any more techno State Resistance content, and how much she enjoys being able to leave but can’t, because her partner is queer.

Really, its a bunch of people who either like being in an in-group and/or they like feeling superior/powerful by promoting authoritarian communism.

Saving for months ≠ using money earmarked for necessary expenses. I saved for months to buy the parts for my PC, and all of it was discretionary income.

But I otherwise agree that you should not spend your necessary funds on unnecessary expenses.

Fair enough. I’m just hopeful I’ve given them a little spark of doubt and a reminder that multibillion dollar companies aren’t in the business of telling the objective truth.

This is not a good source. This is effectively, “We’ve investigated ourselves and found [that AI is a miraculous wonder].” Anthropic has a gigantic profit incentive to shill AI, and you should demand impartiality and better data than this.

Yep, and it’s going into the pockets of billionaires, who are almost exclusively responsible for said climate disasters. It’s a

Considering your comments, you don’t seem to know what the point I made was.

Thanks! I appreciate you noticing.

Cool, know what job could easily be wiped out? Management. Sam Altman is a manager.

Therefore, Sam Altman doesn’t do real work. Fuck you, asshole.

It’s resistant, though, specifically because you can fork it. Don’t like where things are going? Like the features of a previous version? Fork that version and run with it.

It does mean extra work for somebody to maintain that forked version, but the option is nonetheless there.

Cool, and I bet it will be just as trustworthy as WhatsApp (i.e. not at all).

“Should they?” No. Games are a form of art, and they have no obligation to be anything more than what they are.

That said, if their goal is to reach as many players as possible, they will miss out on a (likely) growing demographic by excluding PvE, especially if the framework is already there. Many people have no interest in duking it out with sweaty tryhards, and even if a game is lucky not to have those types, there’s still people who make it their mission to grief others whenever possible.

So I don’t think they “should,” but it’s shortsighted not to.

It would be a massive improvement if we treated their crimes like fraud and theft, but it’s nice to dream.

If we Americans can’t sensibly regulate ourselves, seems like the reasonable thing to do.

Same

It’s good to know what we can do to reduce our own use—we all have to live on this planet, after all—but these kinds of articles pop up and, at the very least, make people think their efforts will have a meaningful impact. They go to sleep thinking they’re solving the problem (barring extreme situations like war-driven scarcity, for example).

But if every household stopped using electricity, many countries would still have a massive energy problem on their hands, because households aren’t really the problem.

This is actually an excellent use case for AI. Physics and chemistry as scientific disciplines are lots of complex pattern recognition and manipulation. AI is just a pattern recognition and generation engine, despite what the tech bros and apologists like to tell us.

What these engines generate will ultimately be vetted by experts before it even goes to trials. Scientists don’t just take things on blind faith simply because a robot or even another expert comes up with something; their entire deal is to understand their particular field of study in great detail, after all!

You are correct, but who said it would be the Democrats doing the work?

This is one of the things that frustrates me about my current boss. He keeps talking about some future project that uses a new codebase we’re currently writing, at which point we’ll “clean it up and see what works and what doesn’t.” Meanwhile, he complains about my code and how it’s “too Pythonic,” what with my docstrings, functions for code reuse, and type hints.

So I secretly maintain a second codebase with better documentation and optimization.