aquentinn

Or just run Muse Spark for free, so the model could be worth zero too - GPU cost.

Those seniors were juniors once too. If you don't train the juniors, who will become seniors?

And you can't just poach either because in that case we wouldn't have had juniors to begin with.

I think that lateral thinking is so extremely complex, and the ability for a man created thing to act on its own is way more complex than that, that some bot fooling around - unless it's a human behind them doing the fooling which would then go against biology where the species is concerned - is unlikely even in a million years.

It's humans that have to do it, or unthinking robots that we control, and humans hit the age barrier.

Even if age related advances get to say 1000 years per human, how long it takes to go to the next solar system at 10% the speed of light?

The great filter is still a useful metaphore of sorts as a 'be mindful of the species', not that we don't have the aztecs and other civilizations for that too - though the species itself is a bit different - but for where are the aliens, it might just be the distance is too far even for our nearest neighbours.

How long would it take us to colonize Mars for example where we'd then be able to use it as a base for the next planet, realistically speaking? Maybe a 1000 years... if at all.

It could also just be that the economics or incentives don't work. Look at Musk, one year of talking about Mars was enough for him. So maybe these things just take so long that you need to advance so much to get even to the next solar system, or perhaps even the next planet, who is to know.

All we can say is that we probably don't have a species as advanced as us at our nearest solar system. Beyond that, we can't reasonably have any idea unless we assume that advances in basic science are unlimited - when physics and biology have had very few this century compared to the last five centuries.

Isn't the real great filter the speed of light? How long would it take us to go even to the nearest solar system, and even at say half the speed of light, let alone to the next galaxy?

You'd need to form some sort of a cult, and some sort of a space mini-town, and somehow reproduce food in space, and have some sort of renewable energy.

We haven't sent humans to even Mars yet. Rather than 'they would have visited if they exist, and since they haven't there's a great filter,' it's probably more that we just don't know what the limits are and there's no reason to think hard constraints like the speed of light can be addressed even in a million years.

Hmm, very pessimistic conclusion. Not that there's anything to disagree with, it's just putting it all down to luck or being born rich sounds too limited and narrow. If it isn't, then the only option would be becoming an activist no? But, maybe those are the only two things you see because you're putting the end goal way too high... as in being a renowned novelist to take one example, instead of someone with some following.

How on earth did you figure out what the 'average' person wants? 'Average' by the way doesn't exist, its an artificial math concept. What people want is an endless list of things and a bot no longer being objective, as in just addressing the search query, isn't one of those things.

I think at this point everyone has forgotten what problem they were trying to address exactly, because they clearly haven't addressed it.

I think it was something like Google knows what you eat, or will eat, for breakfast. Ok, Facebook too and some other trillion dollar companies. That is cross websites infrastructure, data mining, etc, etc - platforms in one word. Why not apply all this to the ones doing it though, instead of making all websites responsible?

In regards to analytics, the library needs to know what book you borrowed. Sure, a website doesn't 'need' in some platonic sense to know what article was most read today, but the EU parliament clearly does.

It is a hard problem though, what they were trying to address, but arguing that they were effective beyond showing that there is an EU jurisdiction is not at this point a persuasive argument.

It's fine though. This is still a very new parliament. It can and hopefully will learn from the experience and maybe even make an effective use of that very new EU jurisdiction, like maybe break up these tech monopolies, or try.

Every site needs analytics no, unless you're going to walk in the dark, and they need payment processors. If it was just about ads, they could have limited it to ads, like 'tracking for the purpose of advertising,' though even then is a press release advertising, and every serious company is going to have press releases.

They could have instead targeted it, and applied it, to third party ad providers only, like Google. And, btw, Google is big enough they could have just outright named it. They're worth as much as the GDP of Germany. Why not just make a Google law?

So yeah, maybe good intentions but it clearly shows the EU parliament is still too young and inexperienced.