augment001

> Its not a false premise, there has been many anthropological studies that form the basis for catastrophism, extinction and a changing earth, they have been backed up with evidence for hundreds of years.

Did these past catastrophes involve AI and computers?

It’s more than slightly overstated. It’s a total lie.

Showing up at someone’s house and killing someone because they have your phone is always illegal in every US state.

I don’t know why people are trying to defend this. It’s complete misinformation.

I don’t think so.

Can you quote something that Sangeeth wrote that indicates how they disagree with me?

How is that relevant to Sangeeth69’s comment?

There doesn’t seem to be any connection between what they said and what I said.

Can you explain how this has any relevance at all to going to someone else’s house and killing them because you wrongly think your cellphone is somewhere nearby?

As far as I can see the person who I was replying to is simply making this up.

I think you’re spreading misinformation. I hope it’s not intentional.

There is not a single state in the US where it is legal to shoot someone just for being on your property.

In what state is it legal to kill people for stealing your stuff?

I’m curious why you imagine anyone is expecting that?

There are technologists other than Apple who could help them understand.

Expecting journalists to have an answer before writing a piece is very reasonable.

Apple always has two choices. Adapt or die. They always respond in the same way. They adapt to provide integrated end user benefits from emerging technologies, and expose those technologies to developers on their platforms.

Why would this be any different?

Why not?

Sure, but if you buy something and it’s not delivered and there is no customer service department, it’s probably the best recourse.

Why not just cancel the payment?

> The contention is if history has gone through multiple and innumerable cycles and has ended up at the same outcome multiple times before.

The first problem is that this is simply a false premise. Very few people would make such a claim, and none can back it up with evidence.

The second is that you still seem to think that technological change has no impact on history.

Clinging to dogma isn't a strategy either.

If we're trading catchphrases, here's one I prefer:

"In times of change learners inherit the earth while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." - Eric Hoffer.

That said, I'd prefer it if someone addressed the point, which is that the analysis of what's possible dates from an earlier technological era.

If the contention is that technology doesn't change what's possible in society and that society will always be the way it is was for most of the 20th century, I think we can safely ignore that.

> There's a lot of written history showing this.

All of which comes from an era without the public internet, the smartphone, or AI.

This doesn’t seem practical. Anyone with a bike could side-swipe a car to get a payout.

And consider the less malicious case of an out of control cyclist leading to cars swerving into pedestrians to avoid hitting the bike.

Not really, unless you think the foreign minister is the one in power.

You first. This whole ‘metrics’ question is a distraction.

If you can explain why your argument doesn’t apply to Finland, I’ll point you to a news report showing China’s support for Russia.

It’s not my job to inform you. If you don’t think China is supporting Russia’s position then you need to do some reading.

Also, I guess you can’t explain why Finland isn’t Russia’s best friend despite bordering Russia.

I guess you haven’t been watching the news.

Honestly, that’s not an explanation.

If one of your neighbors was beating up and stealing from another of your neighbors, are your really saying you’d cosy up to them? By this logic you’d expect Finland to be Russia’s best friend.

I am critical of the Chinese system of government, but I’d never think of them as cowards.

> China doesn't support aggression in Ukraine and have made that much clear.

Would you mind explaining where they have made it clear?

All I’ve seen are statements blaming it on the US for being open to new NATO members.

> China is bordering Russia. If you think that somehow doesn't change the type of relationship both parties are forced to have you don't understand geopolitics.

Can you explain what you are thinking? One implication is that China is supporting Russia because they are afraid of a Russian military actin, but is that what you mean?

> Anyone saying "China also wants an empire" or "Empire is inevitable" is categorically wrong, though, or at the very least has not at all engaged with the essay above.

This is frankly, silly. The essay is just doublespeak.

If you can’t articulate clearly why it’s not in China’s interest to extend its influence throughout the world, it’s because you don’t have a coherent position.

For what it’s worth, I think most of the criticisms of the American system are valid, and the extent to which we are aware of them is because it’s founded on being open to criticism.

We’re faced with humanity being deeply flawed and not having developed a utopian system of government anywhere, ever.

A central question we are facing is - do we want a world in which governments can be criticized, or one in which such criticism is brutally repressed?

This always confuses me - how can you appear in a video call if you’re wearing a headset?

The article doesn't say they used Bing. It says ChatGPT.

From the piece:

"I think this is a pretty stark wake-up call. The system is portrayed as being credible and informative and authoritative, and it's obviously not."

Nowhere does openAI 'portray' ChatGPT this way, and there is a reminder that it produces false information every time you use it.

Are you sure they did?

There is a recent claim that they did from a random South Korean outlet with no track record of being correct on such claims.

If you Google, you’ll see that “Apple cuts production on low demand” claims are made once or twice a year on average.