391–400 of 715 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would go for out of touch, not cynical. A lot of people really think AI is the devil.
It will be hard to convince them otherwise when their jobs are replaced with AI, and they are in their late 40s or later - with no time to adjust and to learn new craft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> look at Iran and US. Where is "rule of law"? Who is going to give it magically? Rule of law - in this case, international law - has governed the Strait of Hormuz and relations between the US and Iran for decades. It's not magical or fantasy at all, but a very well-established and effective mechanism that has been the foundation of the most peaceful world arguably in human history. There is no valid argument that it…
> The Trump administration explicitly aims to destroy that rule of law. It's not just Trump. Trump and Biden both shredded the rule of law for Israel. I think both parties being captured by a genocidal foreign government has caused mass dissolution with the ability of the US to act within any framework that brings justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> face of AI amongst low-information luddites This is condescending and unfair. Altman, OpenAI, and the media have spent years making Altman the face of AI. His company has (by far) the largest market cap, does the most deals, and has the most users. I suspect Anthropic/Claude will become as much of a household name as ChatGPT, but it's not even close yet. ChatGPT is almost a generic term for AI chatbots at the momen…
[flagged]
No fucking wonder they're throwing molotovs. How about not calling people less fortunate elitist, condescending names.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you spend much time with people not in the tech world? I think you'd be surprised how many people hold similar sentiments, even if not to such an extreme, especially once you talk to people in the real world. I've heard far more support for this sort of thing in real life than I have online due to fear of repercussions. Hell, even the president regularly calls for and promotes violence, so I don't think it's that…
> Do you spend much time with people not in the tech world? Most of it. Across the political spectrum. > even if not to such an extreme That’s precisely the point. There is a massive difference between doing or aiding and abetting such behavior, cheering it on, and giving into the impulse of “couldn’t have happened to a worse person” before self correcting. There are a few saints who reject the violence at first glan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I interpret it as an expression of disgust. Similar to how people will stop reading and throw away a good book when they learn the author is a morally reprehensible person.
Like, I wouldn't spit the food out. But I would be disgusted. Someone told me they planned their vacation with an llm and I couldn't help but express disdain for this friend of mine. Why are we outsourcing creativity and research and interest in discovery to an llm?
I also discovered the best way to go to an art museum is to walk through with AI, taking pictures of each piece of art. It will tell you the historical context of its creation, a 1 page summary of the most facinating facts. It is like having a team of 100 art history professors in your pocket.
It is a bit scary how people seem to genuinely be OK with violence (see this reddit thread [0]). Is just me or does it feel like the overall "temperature" has gone up. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1shugf8/firebomb_t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you spend much time with people not in the tech world? Most of it. Across the political spectrum. > even if not to such an extreme That’s precisely the point. There is a massive difference between doing or aiding and abetting such behavior, cheering it on, and giving into the impulse of “couldn’t have happened to a worse person” before self correcting. There are a few saints who reject the violence at first glan…
I mean, he literally just posted a video on his account of a woman being violently beaten to death with a hammer as a call for people to do something about immigrants.
Zero dispute. I’m challenging the notion that Americans are rising to that call. (Or cheering on specific attacks, versus general notions of violence.)
In a weird way, maybe social media helps in this one instance. We can’t let the enemy be faceless. There is no glory in shooting a specific mother or nurse.
It is a bit scary how people seem to genuinely be OK with violence (see this reddit thread [0]). Is just me or does it feel like the overall "temperature" has gone up. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1shugf8/firebomb_t...
These are message boards. The obvious sentiment, that firebombing attacks are awful (perhaps cut a little bit with "the perpetrator appears to be someone deeply in need of help) is boring. This is an availability bias issue: the only sentiments that actually spool out into threads are edgy. Once you learn to spot these effects, message boards make a lot more sense and are less jarring.
It's an interesting exercise to compare these threads.
My own position on the matter is the not an edgy one: political violence of any kind, is never justified, but it does signal that something deep in society requires a change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all the federal taxes collected. The top 25% pay 89% of taxes. Net of transfers, 60% of households receive more from government transfers than they pay in taxes. The idea that rich people don't pay taxes is just not correct. The entire system is basically rich people subsidizing everybody else through byzantine distributional systems.
I'm not talking about the top 1%. I'm talking about the top 0.01%.
I get that a lot of people think people's unrealized capital gains should be taxed, so maybe the argument you're making is something like:
"People with very large paper-gains based on appreciation of the market-value of the assets they own pay 0% taxes on those unrealized gains"
In which case, yeah, that's definitely true. But if they sell those assets, they pay taxes. Some of the taxes from those sales can be offset by doing things like donating enormous sums of money to charity. And sometimes people take loans against their equity, which is not a taxable event. Though, in order to pay those loans back, they have to sell something (taxable) or earn money elsewhere (also taxable). So loans are tax deferral...
But eventually the tax man comes for everybody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To what numerical end? How many people live in Iran, who he just threatened to genocide? How many people hold views that Trump thinks make them his enemy, including being critical of ICE? How many immigrants are in the country? It's going to be a very large number, no matter how you slice it.
I mean to what numerical end do Trump’s supporters pick up arms when he calls them to violence.
But some examples: Jan 6, the attack on Paul Pelosi, every ICE agent.
Personally, I've also received multiple death threats from his supporters.