Speaking from the perspective of an ameteur musician, I play the saxophone. If I were to get bullied for it and have my social life ruined in high school, I would have switched instruments and be just as happy playing trumpet or clarinet or whatever, the actual instrument I play... doesn't matter that much to me, music brings joy regardless of what you play. Maybe that's not true for others, but IMO I would prefer to have a good social life and play a different instrument, than play my particular flavour of wood/metal tube and be ostracized from my peers. Just my opinion though, others may not feel this way.
1. it's unfair that boys who chose to play flute got bullied for it
2. it's not good that his brother essentially took his choice from playing flute by reinforcing #1
3. #2 is actually simultaneously the way to minimize the negative effects of the authors choice of instruments
So in spite of those first two things individually being pretty shitty, they actually give you an optimal outcome (socially) in school.
Ideally we get to a place where #1 stops happening, but you won't solve it by going against the grain, you'll just be a martyr for nothing.
all of the books I had in university basically just gave me the final result at the back of the book with no explanation, so I am quite jealous if this was your experience with textbooks. Could you name some of these books? They might be nice to buy!
Putting aside whether or not the author used AI to write this - the concern here is that the content is accurate and correct, right? So suppose they did use AI to write it - your end goal is actually the same - you want a trustworthy, accurate, source of information.
In this sense AI does not actually detract from that - so long as there IS an author associated to the book, that author can build a reputation for thoroughly reviewed and high quality textbooks. So in the end, some authors will be known for a reputation for making good books, and the use of AI should give us access to a larger quantity of books, addressing more and more niche topics, for lower costs. So, this should be a good thing for education?
I'm very much just writing my thoughts down, but curious to know if others agree or disagree with this.
utilities don't generally "compete" with each other like how most business do - becauase that would mean they own redundant infrastructure. They are more like localized monopolies, because there is usually only 1 that operates for each given address.
Except it's not claiming to be official content and I don't see how it is harming anyone, or do you think the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of it?
>but how is using StarCraft and its assets in your random AI game okay?
How is it not ok? What is the issue exactly? From what I can tell it's totally free, and has an indication it is a fan game on the bottom of the screen.
I think I disagree, if I had a puzzle on my desk and I told an LLM to explain how to solve it, I think I have robbed myself of the enjoyment of solving the puzzle. Is it really any different than googling a solution?
i think to certain types of people (who are probably more likely to be mathematicians), the "self" discovery aspect of it is important, they don't want to read about a new proof for a problem they were grappling with, they want to come about it through their own thoughts.
don't we already have lots of machines that do things like this though? Even if its human operated: excavators, combines, tractors, and other heavy machinery have reduced the physical burden involved in sustaining large societies tremendously.
I am very surprised at the number of people in this thread who are labelling this time old tradition of inviting people into your home as stressfull, unnecessary, or a waste of their time. To be honest it is quite depressing.
I don't think "being extroverted all the time" is the desired outcome that is being demanded.
You don't need to do that to throw a dinner party a couple of times a year.
I do feel like the open-source desktop is probably the *most* modern of the 3 options (Windows, Mac, Linux). The configurations I have seen using hyprland implement a spectacular amount of features that cover different users needs in a way I could only dream of 15 years ago. Smooth animations, customizable workspace navigation, custom quickshell widgets that could do literally whatever you want, integrated side-panels that have things as niche as image board search, and much less niche like AI chat and language translation. This is just me describing illogical impulse dots[1], but that's just 1 configuration, and i didn't even mention all of the features available. My only complaint is that I think the way hyprland manages workspaces is goofy with multi monitor setups.
it only seems not-crazy if you also accept the implication "gypsys COULD live in housing like all of us normal people, but instead choose to live in parks and shit in bushes" - instead of framing it as a failure of housing policy or mental health, its being made a personal (moral) failure of individuals. That's the gross part.
this is kinda true but a lot of distros are like this.
If I installed debian and hyprland i'd basically be able to set up the same config as i have on arch now. Linux distros are basically just pick which package manager you like + whatever config you think is closest to what you want
There's multiple advantages to making money from equities that people who make money from ordinary income simply do not have, favourable tax rates, the ability to choose when and how much to realize, the ability to loss harvest, compound interest, everything around how we tax these 2 forms of income is set up to beget inequality.
Not as dystopian as the ability to get wealthier without working and pay no taxes (and even IF you sell to realize gains, your tax liability is still lower than someone who made money through labour)
Until you have a unit and a method to measure this field, and a way to experiment on it, it is not scientific theory. And, if it WAS the EM field, then surely transistors (or some other fundamental component of electronics or combination thereof) would be capable of having feelings, since they operate on electromagnetic principles.
And most people wouldn't eat cats, but would eat some of pig, cattle, chicken, what's the difference between those exactly? My point is consciousness is not it, if it were, we (as in a majority) would still eat cats and dogs, or we wouldn't eat any animals. But we clearly have a way of picking and choosing which is OK and which isn't. And in both cases we generally don't give them the same moral consideration we give to people, conscioussness aside. There is something OTHER than consciousness which is important to us.
Ostensibly animals appear to be conscious, yet we still eat them, and the vast majority are not bothered by this. So being "conscious" isn't really the moral line in the sand many people are drawing in response to this article.
Who cares if it's "conscious"? That doesn't make it a person, and AI will definitionally never be human.
does a hydrocarbon have feelings? what about a mitochondria? a cell? a neuron? what about a collection of neurons? how many neurons before it has "feelings"?
Almost all of these big phone companies are also the ones selling tablets and some of them laptops, so if they did do that they would start eating into their other business units.