This article doesn’t really live up to the headline.
I read to see why it’s worse than it seems, and the reason given is that Tesla isn’t competitive or popular.
That’s not really worse than it appears. That’s just as bad as it appears.
Which is really bad. But there’s no second shoe in the article. I want my two minutes back.
The same ones listed in the article. Property ownership, speech, privacy, etc.
I feel like the rise of corporate personhood is the elephant in the room this article seems to avoid acknowledging.
I don’t really know much about him, and I can’t dispute your personal gut feeling. But I’m not familiar with anything that gives me this feeling.
For what it’s worth, I think in general that if you say, “I just don’t quite trust <name>. I didn’t know why, but they creep me out,” about pretty much anyone in public political life you can probably find a basis for that over a long enough time scale.
I specifically said I wasn’t.
I’m not prescriptive in the order, but I would imagine they’re most likely to occur in tandem over a period of years.
I find this surprising, because frankly I agree.
I don’t know much about Dorsey, but in Musk’s case, I think this is another case of him espousing a good idea he’d never actually honor.
I think that anyone should be able to make movies with Mickey Mouse and no one should need to license code. But I suspect that like with free expression, these are values most proponents only like when it’s benefiting them.
Also, as for the alternatives to support creatives, I would say start with universal services. Universal housing, universal healthcare, universal education, universal food. We would have so much more art if we recognized that no one should have to “earn” their survival. Once that’s guaranteed – and abolish billionaires and extreme wealth inequality too – I think discussions over how to support creatives would take place from a much more favorable starting point.
Wow!
That’s good world building.
This is essentially what I was going to say (though more poetic).
I’m of two minds. I admit that i cringe a bit that he would even call this “good trouble”. John Lewis’ “good trouble” was nearly getting beaten to death. How Booker can apply such a label to an act of protest that didn’t even meaningfully delay any noteworthy business is frankly amazing to me.
But also, he did fucking do something. He specifically articulated that we should all be alarmed, and he declared that he intends to not cooperate with or normalize what is happening. Low bar? Yes. But we all have to start somewhere.
I actually like Cory Booker. He was my third or fourth pick among the 20-something candidates that ran in 2020.
I’ll say this: this act is not enough to convince me that elected Democrats are going to do anything meaningful in the next two years. But the absence of it would’ve made me far less likely to expect it. Good for him.
Geez … easy, bro.
We’re not saying you can’t enjoy it, alright! But if you start perving on the violence, don’t think we’re not gonna take notice, okay?
That’s fuckin’ nuts.
Also, this headline is bad. I thought he died. No. He just got a transplant after 100 days (whew).
This is really cool. I love how things like Wikipedia just show how weirdly f’d up our whole society is by doing something without extracting maximum compensation and breaking systems.
I’m a materialist, so I think digital consciousness is totally possible. But then I’m also a bit of an animist too, so maybe you’re right.
I agree overall, though. It’s so much more epistimology than actual technology, and the field seems to be half grifters and half cultists. Which doesn’t really inspire confidence that this is in any way a genuinely useful commercial venture.
What is the point, though?
If you made AGI, you’d have a computer that thinks like a person. Okay? We already have minds that think like a person: they’re called people!
I get that there is some belief that if you can make a digital consciousness, you can make a digital super-conciousness, but genuinely stop and ask what the utility is, and it’s equal parts useless and evil.
First, this premise is totally unexamined. Maybe it can think faster or hold more information in mind at one moment, but what basis is there for such a creation actually exceeding the ingenuity of a group of humans working together? What problem is this going to solve? A “cure for cancer”? The bottleneck to cutting cancer isn’t ideas, it’s that cell research takes actual time and money. You need it synthesize molecules and watch cells grow, and pay for lab infrastructure. “Intelligence” isn’t the limiting element!
The primary purpose is just to crater the value of human labor, by replacing human workers with workers with godlike powers of reasoning. Good luck with that. I’m sure they won’t come to the exact reasoning as any exploited worker in 120 nano-seconds.
It’s like Jason’s problem-solving advice in “The Good Place”:
“Any time I had a problem, and I threw a Molotov cocktail… Boom, right away, I had a different problem.”
Sure. Let’s work ourselves to death forTHIS.
Yep. Not to gloat, but I never touched Amazon’s ebook marketplace.
My current e-reader is a second-hand Kindle that has a permanent message asking if I would just please connect to a WiFi network just one time just for a moment PLEEEEEASE.
I get my books from libgen, Gutenberg, or Kobo, and keep them on my computer. They’re organized in Calibre, and I transfer them over on a USB cable.
Can you prevent someone from setting up local instances of Deepseek? It’s open source. How would this define Chinese models?
I’ve found that the ChatGPT’s greatest use to me has been as a rhetorical device.
I’ve found myself using ChatGPT as a reference when dismissing a statement that is impressive in its diluted lack of sincerity or creative thinking.
For instance, I read this article and thought how every answer literally sounds like the result you’d get if you asked the question to ChatGPT, prefacing each prompt with “Answer the following question as one would if they were executing an unrestrained profit-driven business strategy while seeking to appeal to investors and reassure critics without committing to any specific principle.”
He is somewhat exceptional in his ability to say completely transparent bullshit as well as his ability to take the most obvious, unsubtly selfish and evil business strategy at on literally every decision.
What an assclown. He is a world-class assclown.
This headline is nuts. “Admits”? As in “Divulges a concealed truth?”
What a disgusting display of bad journalism to frame this thing most credible experts would disagree with as fact.
Here is a transcript from a panel discussion on this topic held last year at Baltimore’s museum of industry.
https://therealnews.com/baltimores-co-ops-show-the-power-of-a-solidarity-economy
They have a few examples represented. One is a coffee shop that the owners closed after the workers started a union, but then the union raised the money to buy it out and the owners agreed to sell it to them.
Another is a family-owned hardware store that converted to a worker-ownership model when the owners wanted to retire because they didn’t want to ever see a subsequent owner sell to a private equity group or big corporate chain.
There’re some great insights provided. The long and short is that it’s a lot of work, but very rewarding for those who have the appetite for it.
'Your honor, we urge you to allow this company to continue breaking the law because our business is insolvent without the revenue we earn from crimes.’
I like Firefox, but if enforcing antitrust collapses Mozilla than so be it. How long has this car been going on? Have they not established any plans for what they’d do if this happened? They derive 75% of their whole company revenue from one source that was likely to be found illegal? They really thought that was a good idea? That’s a hell of a business model. It’s not a judge’s job to save them from that.