cman1444

If, as a society, we wanted to publicly shame every major corporation when a violation of this magnitude occured then each headline would be up for a minute or two.

There is limited public attention. Wasting it on such a minor infraction is unwise. Much better to focus on more egregious examples of corporate wrongdoing.

Disagree. 1.5 sq miles of forest is miniscule. Shouldn't even be local news where it happened.

I think the only thing your downvotes say is that many people disagree with your opinion.

Until it gets good enough that you can't tell the difference. It will climb out of the uncanny valley eventually.

Exactly. Also, for practical purposes, an AI's capability to meet or exceed human performance is a very important benchmark. It makes the decision between using AI vs paying a human creator very easy.

A remarkably individualistic trend. You no longer need to rely on the central authority for your electric utility.

I hope it's more like discovering islands of information which we can use as footholds to connect the dots between them.

It matters from the perspective of tech dependency.

If a medium/small country deemed it a threat to rely on US/China for AI capabilities, they can get 95% of the utility by banning all American and Chinese models and just using local ones.

This contrasts to something like oil or nukes, where if you're not one of the countries blessed with them, you have a serious power imbalance.

Right. My point with that comment was to mirror fezoracer's comment that "you are not entitled to someone else's money and people aren't required to pay for something they can make themselves"

Both are strawman arguments, so my mistake on mine.

Of course you're allowed to criticize.

Likewise, others are free to criticize your criticism.

My point is it's silly to be upset about others charging for products that are easily vibe coded. If it's that easy to make, and they are charging too much, then someone else (it could even be you!) will come along and undercut them.

Yes it is. I can go to the grocery store and buy one in 10 minutes from where I am now. And it would cost me very little to do so.

That's the analogous equivalent of spending the tokens to use AI to make this project.

The analogous equivalent of growing a potato yourself over months would be creating this website without AI.

It's not just their refusal to pay for something that's low-effort. It's the fact that they are criticizing the creator for charging anyone at all.

You're not entitled to dictate what someone else charges for their product, no matter how easy it is to make.

It is surely much easier to replace a potato than to recreate this. Yet we still pay for potatoes.

What makes you think that computers will be unable to pick relevant questions for humans?

Surely an AI could consider the human's needs, wants, and interests, and then provide a likely candidate for a good question.

This is the goal of some, but very few overall, government regulations. Not even close to "all".