argentinian

Yes, it would be nice if people who make the world a better place would receive more attention and appreciation.

I think I see your point. I don't say it's wrong. I just wanted to comment that your feeling repulsed is the result of the way you interpret the situation, and that there are many ways to see it.

Agency is an illusion. You don't generate your thinking, it just happens. I don't know why you believe that agency of the maker is needed for something to be enjoyable.

We could also say that the makers are the builders of the IA, and that they put effort in building it.

This is like saying that going to restaurants does not allow your talent to shine in cooking.

Every person decides what to do with their saved time. Some people may want to use a ready made game, others may prefer to write a story or alter the script of the game. The ones who play a ready made game may express their creativity in areas not related to gaming.

You are judging people for not doing what you think they should do. As if your role was to be their social engineer.

Many people do many absent minded activities with no deep thinking. Social Media sites are now in a big part about that, feeding pointless low effort distraction.

You may analyze why do people seek such a thing and feel compassion. and what should humans do instead? Why? Is there an objective answer?

Is just your interpretation. AI will eventually be used to produce any kind of media or product that humans can think of.

If you are disgusted by this, the resources spent on AI adult content would make you mad. But why judge what other people choose to do.

There's an episode of President Curtis where USA is running out of energy and the final solution is to (spoilers) tax AI porn.

Can somebody with experience using both compare Svelte/Sveltekit with Vue/Nuxt?

Yes. No idea why. I read most books on my ereader and believe it's the best way to read.

First, thanks to all of you who share recommendations in this kind of topics. I found great books here.

I'm gonna recommend an author I never saw over here and that I found interesting.

Peter Kingsley. He's an academic who studied classical Greek philosophers and what he calls "the origins of western civilization" and he's also a mystic.

While reading him sometimes I think he may be mad, and at other times I think that his explanations make a lot of sense. His central idea (or what I got from him) is that at the origin of western civilization and its fundamentals there were mystics, not intellectuals. He includes among these mystics Parmenides and Empedocles. Then intellectuals gained popularity and took control of the discourse and diminished and ridiculed the real role of Parmenides and Empedocles and their teachings.

As a starting point, his shortest book "In the dark places of wisdom" is a very good introduction of his ideas and would allow a reader to know if he wants to read more or not. As a second book I think that "Reality" is a good choice.

If programming was used to temporarily increase one's self esteem from it then it's not a problem with the IAs, but a psychological problem. The problem is valuing a human being because of what they produce and not recognizing intrinsic value. The same situation could have happened in a different profession when automation replaced it, it's not about IA.

Yes. Maybe their business model was never sustainable and now they are unfairly blaming IA as a scapegoat to justify layoffs.

If they produce pointless products then they will lose money.

Laws are voted by politicians. Do you mean that most EU politicians are puppets of EU corporations?

With advanced AI real time translation I don't see any need for that.

If every side effect of the redistribution measures is taken into account, or if only policies that were tested and proven to work well are applied. I think then that they could have good results.

Consider that the URSS and Cuba were about redistributing wealth and it didn't end well there.

And yes, those were simply my motives, I also would like everyone to be happy and capable of attending to their basic needs in the world.

I'm not against redistributing wealth. I'm sure that it is going to be obligatory with the jump off productivity that IA would allow, and I believe that some redistribution strategies are very good and that others aren't.

What I also believe is that reducing poverty is a much better goal than redistributing wealth. Redistributing wealth can be a valid strategy for reducing poverty.

It's not trivially falsifiable, is a fact.

No, if demand is 0 you wouldn't have a reason to run that.

If demand decreases then that can cause energy to become cheaper.

Consider human history. You will be able to see that the greatest acts of good and evil were not done by the ultra rich.

> Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard.

Do you believe that the same government people that is influenced by lobbying is going to vote to close the ways in which corporations give them money to control their decisions? How could that happen?

> No one has to pretend, they can just prove it. That's not tyranny, it's reason.

Tyrants believe that they know what's reasonable for the people to do with their lives, and as is often there case a lot of people don't agree with them, so then they use force to coerce people to do what they will.

There's no reasonable way to prove how people must live.

> They're the same thing

That's you opinion and is not an absolute fact. At least you can see that it's debatable:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/19/poverty-...

And your suppositions about my motives are wrong.

Edit: my motives are that I simply believe that they are not the same, just that.

Now they cause harm because there's people that may believe a fake video is real. But people is developing skepticism about what they see in videos and learning to think that they may be generated, before taking them as true.

What kind of harms do you have in mind?

If as you say, corruption requires inequality, and there are inequalities that cannot be leveled, like strength and intelligence, and power, then monetary equality won't stop corruption.

In a hierarchical organization like a government there will be different power levels.

So, there are inequalities you cannot level. And you suggest that reducing wealth inequality will make the world better. I don't know, I still believe that aiming at reducing poverty is a better goal.

Why? Because without poverty people won't suffer because of survival needs. And without inequality you don't guarantee that there's no poverty.

To me, only a very envious person would put equality over reducing poverty.

Look at Ghandi. He was not a millionaire and did a lot of good.

In the same way there are poor persons who cause a lot of suffering to others without being rich.

As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people

There will be less creators that earn a living by creating. But I believe there will be more art.

E.g. after Michelangelo created his style, then IA can mimick it almost for free. Imagine people with great talent like him, expressing their ideas and also being able to use IA to create, plus thousands of less talented people basing their AI art on them.

A super AI that could exist in the future won't "destroy your writing voice"?

With IA, creation is cheap. It's inevitable that automation would make some jobs disappear. There's no solution, less people will be able to earn a living for creating art, I think.

What do you think about this?

What's wrong with that? There's the low quality slop for the people who desire it, and then there's the high quality literature that's appreciated by people with good taste, and that cannot be easily produced

LLMs don't impede human expression.

You are ultimately stating that there's something unique about human minds that cannot be replicated by machines. It may be so, or not.