muvlon

Prompting the AI to be mean doesn't do shit. It doesn't change that your interaction with it is always consequence-free. It will never refuse to talk to you, and if it gets too mean you can just nuke it and start an new session. You don't have to build or retain any social skills.

He may be using it as a tool, but that doesn't mean it's not displacing social interaction. Previously he would've had to collaborate with people to get the same stuff done, which necessarily involves social interaction.

Not per se, but if you're using it as a substitute for human interaction (like most 'chatbot' style UIs want you to), then yes, absolutely.

The main problem is that talking to AI is like talking to a human without any of the thorny parts. It's only going to be nice and helpful and always available to you. Chatting with AI is to social interaction like candy is to a balanced diet. Sure it's more instantly gratifying but long-term it's really bad for you. You need the thorny parts to build important social skills like tactfulness and navigating conflict.

Notably absent: AI minimalism.

I think that's telling. If you're reducing digital human interaction on social media (which yes, has its share of problems) but replacing it with "social" interaction with AI, that's not minimalism. You're replacing one vice with an even worse one and coping about it.

You can cherry pick the bad ones if the point you want to make is that it's risky. Nobody is saying Anthropic is definitely going to 0, just that there is a risk.

But the Amish are nonetheless protected. Not by the law but by having a community of people around them willing to live with those same restrictions and provide for each other. I think that's much more likely to happen than legal protection also in the AI case.

And then what? Once the economy no longer depends on human input (labor), why do we expect it to keep producing outputs that humans need (food, shelter, medical care)?

I doubt the truthfulness your second sentence. If they have concern for the human race broadly, they have yet to show any of it. What they have shown is a complete lack of 'alignment' (to borrow a tired term) with human values, laws and basic decency.

Somebody else asked this very eloquently: If AGI is here, why does OpenAI need us to prompt it? They could just go and tell it "make as much money as possible" or "make Sam Altman God Emperor of Mankind" and it would go do that. It would not need any of our ideas or guidance.

As long as they're still looking for prompting customers, they're clearly not there yet. There is some solace in that.

For most microcontrollers you'd want to use today (ARM and RISC-V mostly, Xtensa or AVR if you like pain) you can just use Rust.

For anything weirder than that (PIC?) where Rust is no option, it's not like you have no choice either: You can just pick C.

The server could simply be running a patched PHP.

It cannot even show that. The server can lie (trivially).

> If it's all going through the same pipes, what is there to market.

They keep coming up with fancy new pricing schemes or random gimmicks to throw in. Nobody really seems to give a shit though.

The way I understand it in my country is this:

There is only one public water system, every house connects to it. The state tasks specific companies with its maintenance (these are often not utility providers themselves, just construction/maintenance companies).

Consumers attached to that system have a metered connection, but water just flows as long as there's enough overall. Your utilities company doesn't have to move any physical water at all. They just have to eventually "settle" the amount of water that they sold to their customers. They do so by buying and then forwarding options contracts. The electricity and gas companies are the same. They compete on

- trading (who knows best when to buy how much?) and

- consumer-facing marketing

This is how a lot of the modern economy works. Through the power of abstraction, you can run an online store without producing or shipping any items yourself and a delivery restaurant without cooking any meals.

It's a really dumb test. You can apply it to argue against reducing or stopping literally anything. My dead great grandfather uses no fentanyl and commits no murders. If we're not doing those, we're as good as dead!