Viliam1234

> knowing the answer everyone sees is wrong and everyone being incapable of thinking critically about it.

That's what already happens when people read newspapers.

Contact a journalist friend and have them write a story about your blog post or tweet.

Instead of some reasonable time limit such as 14 years, we get big corporations that hoard copyright effectively for eternity, and big corporations that violate copyright instantly.

It's the little guy whose work is copied (used to train models that create copies on demand) immediately, but who is prosecuted when he pirates someone else's work.

> barely any use in real life outside of generating code.

Reverse-engineering code.

Finding vulnerabilities.

Reviewing specifications.

Dying again is the inevitable consequence of being born again.

I suspect that most anti-AI articles are generated by AI these days.

> I have to admit the formalization steps are the fruit of ChatGPT's work and not only would I have not been able to produce them, I still don't understand them and probably never will.

So, Hegel is not impenetrable, because ChatGPT can hallucinate something out of his writings, when you tell it to.

Or specify that it's "open" as in "OpenAI" (i.e. not at all), not as in "open source".

Long ago I have read somewhere a good method to prevent this:

When doing a proof of concept, always use ugly black-and-white buttons and icons. That makes it obvious even to the non-technical people that it is not finished yet, and still requires some work to do.

Is it great to have both. The AI-pedias will probably contain a lot of hallucinations, but also the information that gets removed from Wikipedia (by deletionists, or by editors with an agenda). Neither is reliable, but it probably makes sense to check both.

> our governments work for us and with almost infinite cheap robot labour and national resources the focus should be on society and not enriching some fucking crooks.

But also, with almost infinite cheap robot labour (and army), our governments no longer need to work for us.

In my experience, at some places you can also have both: a job where during some weeks there is little to do, but you have to spend 40 hours sitting in the office regardless, and during some weeks there is so much to do that you need to work overtime. You need to be flexible, you see, but the flexibility only goes one way.

> It probably has something to do with the underlying realities of banana production, supply, and demand.

Such as the fact that you don't need the banana in order to survive, so they have little blackmailing power over you.

> their benefits are quite visible and concentrated to those who are in them, and their costs are spread out and invisible

In your opinion, is the 8-hour workday an exclusive benefit for the insiders, or the invisible cost for the outsiders?

Optionally, because after the 80 are fired, the remaining 20 will think twice before asking for a raise.