bigbadfeline

Hey, put AI to work everywhere and give women all the time they need for beautifying themselves. Many don't understand the value of this but it'll become clear when it happens.

> But if I'm doing REAL work, that isnt tinkering for fun on a side project

Sorry, but this is either dilettante talk or an unhinged exaggeration - Qwen, DS, GLM and MM are perfectly fine for REAL work, unless you are an overly ambitious vibe coder, but then no model can save you. The Cl hand-holding may feel like something but it won't lead to the completion of real REAL work.

> Actually cutting off potential users would probably be counter to short term profit maximization that shareholders care about.

Shareholders know where the money is but it's not where you think it is. People should have learned that already, after watching what happened to the big web platforms.

> That attempt directly caused all of the wars and revolutions of the Long 19th and 20th Centuries,

"directly"? An extraordinary claim with an extraordinary lack of evidence - that's close to the opposite of truth.

> the total cost of which, tangible and psychic, may yet turn out to have been unsurvivable for the species.

The "species" might be doomed you say? All of them or there are exceptions? I'm asking because you talk about the "species" in such a detached and nonchalant manner as if you aren't a member of them. A true member would show some concern, compassion and readiness to act for the preservation of the future, instead of naked bitterness about the past.

> Bots are a big problem.

That's the case everywhere, FB, YT, even on HN. Not all topics are equally affected but most anything of significance is.

> we find out that reddit leadership refused to act on bots because they were afraid of losing the inflated numbers they brings

Reddit's leadership is in he same boat as everybody else, I would suggest avoiding moral accusations when there are systemic conflicts of interest at play.

> Because that is not normal and shouldn't happen either.

I would believe this if you had started fighting existing property taxes first and waited until you have finished that job before trying to prevent non-existent asset taxation.

> I dont expect normal people to have to sell their stock.

Selling stock isn't abnormal, it's done every day. More importantly, people don't have to sell stocks to pay taxes, instead they could use dividends or part of the income they normally use for buying more stocks. The current obsession with growth stocks is part of the problem.

> Capital Gain Tax should just be Income tax.

I wish a good economy could be built without any asset/property taxes but I don't think that's possible. As with everything else, asset taxes can be quite harmful if implemented the wrong way, but that's a different conversation.

> You haven't actually tried to engage with my perspective in a good-faith manner.

No good faith manners are possible with your style of arguing, you didn't answer any of my arguments but you did divert the conversation away from the real issues we started with and into "I'm so injured because you're such a bad person" posturing. Next, I had to figure out how far it'd go and if anything new would come out of it.

> Instead, you denigrated me for my perspective from your very first comment ("death-cult believer")

Nothing new came out, you kept doing it and you will keep doing till the end of times you so desire.

However, while talking to you, I did come across some useful new perspectives, so I'm satisfied with the results and I thank you for your participation, really, I mean it.

> the most useful thing you could do is to reflect on why you've chosen to spend your time interacting with me.

I don't have to reflect, I knew why before I started.

> You responded to a comment of mine, and then you proceeded to keep engaging in what is clearly a dead-end dialog with a useless internet stranger.

The "dead-end dialog" should be your point of view, you're the one who thinks that some external force determines the fate of humans regardless of what they think or do. Doing nothing makes sense only within that point of view.

> There must be a reason for that, no?

Of course there is, if I think that something can be done to improve the human condition I would try to study the impediments to it. One of those is the doomerism which is now in vogue and also used by people with much higher social standing than the usual internet strangers.

> How quickly we've gone from "humans need to stop warring with each other and focus on global security and prosperity for all" to "people offended by the truth don't work in opposition to good ideas, they're useless anyway".

As I said, the quicker, the merrier - because both are true and understanding that saves time for more productive endeavors.

Why do you keep whining anyway, if there's no hope for humanity, there's no hope for you either, as a confused part of it, it's that simple. Just stay away and don't muddy the waters as some hypersensitive primadonna, with apologies to primadonnas everywhere.

> To believe you love humanity while having such disdain for your fellow human beings

What disdain? You see disdain where there are jobs to be done, but it's all in your head. You're the definition of self-fulfilling prophecy, you've locked yourself in your own prison of despair and hypersensitivity, nobody is doing anything to you, but you keep whining and being "sad', craving to lock everyone in your self-built prison too, out of envy.

> even people with the highest of ideals and noblest of visions engage in the behavior that works in opposition to the world they want,

People offended by the truth don't work in opposition to good ideas, they're useless anyway, the sooner they reveal their inability to engage with anything of significance - the better.

> And by the way, pretending that people should live by "sticks and stones" and telling yourself people who don't agree with you are just too "sensitive"

I referred to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Apparently, you're unaware of this expression which reveals a lot about you.

People changing the subject to how offended they are, correlates with their lack of sensible ideas. It also correlates with the desire to divert the conversation into insignificant personal posturing and away from anything productive. I'm glad you illustrated that point here.

> I mean, if we can't even keep from denigrating random strangers in online discussions

I gather, because of my insinuations your faith in humanity sank to a new low? It took too little, too fast, what happened to "sticks and stones"? Being too sensitive is the foundation of conflict, it prevents the straight talk necessary for mutual understanding.

> None of my comments here have celebrated my somber expectations for humanity

Your expectations for humanity can only be based on what you expect from yourself, a person who projects his lack of positive ideas to all of humanity should at least be aware of that fact and not try to project the same despair to everyone else - this suggestion should not be viewed as controversial or offensive.

> what makes you think we're going to stop fighting and figuring out how we can take care of each other?

The fact that we haven't explored the vast majority of available options. It will happen when we stop confusing singing Kumbaya with just living in peace - two vastly different notions, e.g. the fact that someone felt offended doesn't mean he should go to war...

> If AI destroy the world who would make them accountable?

You got that backwards. The point is that not rewarding them for their putative efforts to destroy the world makes that outcome less likely.

> If not, then the risk is fictional and doesn't matter.

Again, the same mistake - destroying the world and Ant's actions aren't independent random variables, the latter does matter for the manifestation of the former.

Intel is good, better than AMD in the open source area.