amrocha

Because the junior grows into a senior in a couple of years and the company is better off for it

Remember this next time you have cancer and get fired, and then have the option to “voluntarily” sign something to keep receiving money until hopefully you’re well enough to look for a new job.

Who are you to decide what matters and what doesn’t?

If you were a journalist reporting on russia or the UAE it would certainly matter.

Not to mention that it’s not that hard to imagine an AI tool being paired with 24/7 surveillance that reports back private information it hears.

It’s also not hard to imagine your average hackers getting their hands on a tool like that after a couple years of governments deploying it.

What’s the point of this comment?

State hacking tech leaks to average hackers and scammers over time. Scammers today are using nation state tech from a decade ago.

Does your grandma decide her own “security posture”? Does she even know what that means?

If you ever think about getting into an online argument with these people, let the fact that pointing out that not white people are americans gets you downvoted stop you.

China is the most capitalist country in the world.

What do you think happens when all the “developing” nations develop and refuse to get paid peanuts to make your phones?

How can you be so sure that you’re evaluating ideas fairly? How can you be so sure you’re not biased? What if you have an intrinsic bias that you’re unaware of shaping every single decision you make? What if that bias was instilled into you purposefully by people who wanted their ideology to seem like the “rational” way of being?

You should be more skeptic of yourself.

You claiming that you “don’t have ideology” is exactly what I’m referring to. Yes you do. Everyone does, and every argument has an ideology behind it. If you can’t see it, that just means you’re so used to it you’re blind to it, like a fish in the ocean. That’s a dangerous state of mind to be in, it’s very easy to manipulate the person that believes they’re objectively right.

You should look up dialectics, it sounds like there would be a lot of new material there for you.

And as for your park example, sure, I’ll explain why it’s not the same thing.

If it costs 10$ to rent a BBQ spot in the park for an hour, do you think that that’s how much it costs to provide that service? It most likely isn’t. Payment is used as a way to limit demand and to ensure commitment for utilization of a limited shared resource. That’s why these resources are usually priced accessibly to the vast majority of the population. The goal is not to make money, the goal is to ensure the shared resource is utilized efficiently.

Do you think that that’s what’s going on here with letting rich people buy access to public infrastructure? It’s not, this is a for profit operation. This service is inaccessible to the vast majority of the population, regardless of whether it’s for sale to the public or not. This is not about sharing a resource, it’s about letting rich people monopolize resources as long as they have the money to pay for it.

The fish is blind to the ocean. All of your arguments are soaked in the ideology of economic primacy. From where I stand, it seems like you’re the one that refuses to understand the argument that doesn’t agree with your ideology.

And to be clear, I couldn’t care less if you own a rail car, but you shouldn’t get to use public infrastructure to operate it.

That’s why it’s called an empire, it needs vassal states

I’m not confusing anything, I just disagree with you.

It’s not an economic argument, it’s an ideological one. Public goods should serve the public. No amount of money can change that.

The privatization of the public good is the problem, regardless of how ecological or economical you rig your economy to make it look.

Everyone is doing coke instead

Engineers are not uniquely immune to this phenomenon. Just look at all the commenters in this board claiming AI makes them 20x more effective.

It’s a very small difference. People would rather line up for the elevator than take the stairs. That’s just human nature.

And it’s such a shit experience that netflix and podcasts destroyed those industries just by offering the same product without ads

You’re not wrong, but I hope a robot spewing personalized ads at you while acting like a friend will be too unsettling for most people to tolerate

Sure, I’m not saying there’s no way of doing it, but a chat interface is deeply personal and not a space that ads have invaded quite just yet. If they want to show ad banners that’s one thing, but targeted diegetic ads are where the real money is. They can’t do that without compromising the chat experience imo.

Well yeah, but if it doesn’t disclose that it’s sponsored content that’s illegal.

That would be hilarious tbh

>For example, in my pet current project

Everything you said is invalidated by this

Literally nobody would talk to a robot that spits back ads at them

The point is that if they’re not profitable they won’t be relevant since they’re so expensive to run.

And there was never any question as to how social media would make money, everyone knew it would be ads. LLMs can’t do ads without compromising the product.

idk friend, it seems kind of presumptuous to demand other people’s time like this.

It’s pretty evident that the people building grok are injecting their ideology into it.

I don’t need more evidence, and I don’t need you to agree with me. Go ahead and write those 20 lines if you so desire. I’m happy to be proven wrong.

Not to say there aren’t problems with ChatGPT, but it generally steers clear of controversial subjects unless coaxed into it.

Grok actively leans into racism and nazism.

Avoiding sensitive subjects is not the same thing as endorsing racist views if that’s what you’re implying.

Right, it’s just been talking about white genocide and generating nazi images instead.