praxulus

Regularly flying private is still out of reach for most people in the global 0.1%. It's more of a 0.01% thing.

Less than 1% of the top 0.1% own a private jet. There are roughly 25,000 private jets in the world, but over 8 million people in the global top 0.1%.

You "only" need ~$7 million to crack the global 0.1%. By income it's around $600k/year. That's nowhere close to private jet money.

There are an enormous number of 2 lane roads in school zones. When there's only one lane of travel in your direction, what's the argument that driving the speed limit could be dangerously slow?

That's not the only way to go without. Cutting back on your electricity usage because your utility bill is getting too high is another way to do it.

Sometimes that's fine if you're just reducing waste. However other times it could mean that you can't keep your house at a reasonable temperature because you can't afford to run your heater/air conditioning enough. That's a form of going without.

It can be good or bad depending on what's driving the change. Improving efficiency, assuming it comes at a reasonable cost, is generally good.

If people are just going without, then that's generally bad.

>GPUs don't have hands. It was a human who plugged in the ethernet cable.

By this logic, every cyberattack is arguably the fault of the victim's IT department for physically hooking their computers up in the first place.

Sure, but the news article wouldn't use the headline "Man uses family pet to bite innocent neighbor", as would be the case if we were to follow the suggestion in the comment at the top of this chain.

The point is that it's a perfectly valid use of the English language to describe AI models as doing things, just as we do with all sorts of other clearly non-living things. This is true regardless of who carries the legal liability for those actions.

I do not believe that our purpose in life is to work as plumbers.

But there are a dozen other people also building the same kind of guns, so unilaterally abandoning your version won't actually avert disaster. All it does is take you out of the running for the the $10 trillion prize that's available if you figure out how to build it without killing everyone.

Maybe you could disprove it by observing a electron/positron pair being created and then annihilating each other, forming a closed loop that couldn't be part of the single path traced by a single particle.

We're commenting on the fact that demand has surged in the last few months. Russian and American behavior from a decade ago didn't (directly) cause that.

The government can refuse to buy a fighter jet that runs software they don't want.

Is it really reasonable to refuse to buy a fighter jet because somebody at Lockheed who works on a completely unrelated project uses claude to write emails?

It is possible that the root cause is an individual person being bad. This hasn't been as common recently because people were told not to be villains and to dislike villains, so root causes of the remaining problems were often found buried in the machinery of complex social systems.

However if we stop teaching people that villains are bad and they shouldn't be villains, we'll end up with a whole lot more problems of the "yeah that guy is just bad" variety.