EliRivers

What that would look like, how it would think, the kind of mental considerations it would have, I do not know. I do suspect that declaring something that thinks like us would have "general intelligence" to be a symptom of our limited thinking.

I recall the Foxconn Wisconsin situation, and I have no doubt Apple et al are well aware of it. String out a pretense of building factories in the US for the next three and a half years? Easy peasy. President Trump will soon get bored of this game anyway and move on to the next one; he already looks like he's bored of it and it didn't bring him universal acclaim and admiration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTkgi7scKo

"you don't grow up until you have to balance a check book."

Is that just shorthand for "be properly aware your own budget and finances" or are there literally still enough people using check (cheque as I might write) books in the US that this is still a literal task people learn.

An example from today was using XAudio2 on windows to output sound, where that sound was already being fetched as interleaved data from a network source. I could have read the docs, found some example code, and bashed it together in a few hours; but I asked one of the LLMs and it gave me some example code tuned to my request, giving me a head start on that.

I had to already know a lot of context to be able to ask it the right questions, I suspect, and to thence tune it with a few follow up questions.

Are you aware that your attitude also affects everyone in a negative way (and you just don't care?), or are you oblivious to the damage you do to people?

Or maybe for you it's all about the output and how good your numbers look, and damaging people is just a price to pay?

How does it pair well with free speech? If I think that you might be recording me without telling me, I'll stop talking.

A bod there whose situation in life made him one of the most likely people in the world to know if anyone in the Lloyds markets was engaging (except anyone actually doing it), and has a long reputation of saying truthful things under the Chatham House rules in such conferences, said he'd not seen any of that and not heard of anyone doing it. It's not the same as fact, but with his long-term reputation and his position in life, it signficantly changed my working calculus on the subject. He didn't want to be professionally quoted on it, hence the CH rule.

Nothing at all to do with having the freedom to be a dickhead or anything like that. Nothing to do with wanting to lie to people without consequence.

And then wait for the lynch mob to come round because they disagree that {people shouldn't be property / women should be allowed to own property / etc }.

UHC and chums simply buy the medical providers, and can then use them to launder people's premiums. UHC et al can only keep a maximum of 20% (? - I forget the exact figure) of the premiums; but if UHC simply own the hospitals, then money laundered through those hospitals via very high profit procedures etc become permitted profits for UHC.

Why would they turn productivity improvements into lower costs, when they could instead turn them into higher profits? Big health insurers such as UHC practice "intercompany eliminations", as it's known; they own those providers you mention and use increasing charges there to get around the limits on how much of the insurance premiums they can keep for themselves. It's in their interests for the charges to go up, especially on anything that's actually cheap. Productivity improvements is just more profit to launder through the providers they own for the purpose of laundering those premiums.

Do you have any evidence of CEOs being fired by shareholders because workers got a payrise? Starbucks has been handing out payrises of a couple of percent this year but I don't see shareholders firing the CEO. Likewise many other public companies.