hourago

> After the conversations, the groups watched the clips again, as well as new video from the same movies. After further discussion that reached consensus, patterns of brain processing aligned across participants as they watched the second round of videos.

What happens when one of the participants is a Language Model. Is it noticeable that there was a language model in the discussion? Do human brain waves changes in non-human ways or language models are just too similar to humans?

It would be good that having the technology we started to study what talking with artificial intelligences do to human brains and if they are altered in any noticeable way.

> In fact, neuroscience shows that the act of seeking itself, rather than the goals we realize, is key to satisfaction.

This contradicts the title. It just says that we need goals to feel happy. Meaningful action is rewarding in itself.

If you do not have goals is probably because you have given away hope, and you are top miserable.

But the title seems to imply that you need more money or equivalent rewards to be happy. I am sure that some people is like that, but that people are not necessarily mentally healthy individuals.

> copyrighted text…

All AI depends so much on copyrighted sources that the only reason all executives are not already in prison is because big corporations think twice before fighting each other.

For what happens to common people for sharing even fair content see https://torrentfreak.com/

> So the question becomes: what else do you get out of it?

You nothing. But John, John gets it as share owner. He wants employees to work longer hours because he gets any benefit of it but the employees pay with their health and personal life the price. Externalization is called.

> We should be compensated for whatever value we provide, measured in a way that agrees between employee and employer (or between market and person/business).

That is a local optimization that hurts the global output. What is efficient for one individual may be damaging when applied to all society.

Just a theoretical example is that your dedication to work makes you a worse parent, or a non-parent, removing a more knowledgeable, better educated and more healthy human from existing.

> This particular article does touch on a goal that isn’t usually explicitly stated: it would make the world “less unequal” if everyone was prevented from working longer hours. Yes, it would, but I am deeply appalled at the thought of trading away individual freedom of action and additional value in the world for that goal.

Individual freedom seems to be in the mouth of all millionaires that can afford that freedom. Most people has to work to live and their freedom of choice ends there. And it is already forbidden in most countries to "work as many hours as you want" because is the only way to avoid a race to the bottom were everybody, except the rich, suffer.

This is a clear example of bias and that the fact that a guy is talented in one thing does not make him be able to understand a different one.

That could be interesting. I have seen accounts making racist or violent remarks and just deleting them afterwards after a few hours.

That accounts seem of normal people engaging in normal conversations. But they spit hate everywhere they go, it is just not reflected in their history.

The results are also vastly different as the expectations, the number of platforms to support, the quality of the cut-scenes, ... and the revenue.

But there are still indie games developed with such small teams. So, that is still a viable possibility.

> During the company’s latest quarterly earnings call on June 12th the septuagenarian rhapsodised youthfully about artificial intelligence (AI) and the latest cloud-computing technology.

The joy of writing about the rich while ignoring society struggles.- The Economist

The economy makes no sense anymore. Add a fee to all financial transactions or financial transactions will eat the economy.

The problem is that the open internet is dying. What used to be blogs and forums now is Reddit. Tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of communities that had their own wiki, blog, forum, ... are now reduced to be a Subreddit.

The Internet has become fragile. One service goes down and everybody suffers. If the top 10 services went down most people would think that there is no Internet at all.

E-Mail is the last standing service that is way more open that the rest. But the raise of Whatsapp and equivalents are challenging that. One day all our communication will depend on a monopoly. We are starting to know what would have happened if AT&T have never been split.

"scandal-ridden" what an euphemism for a well known pedophile that got out of many other crimes thanks to his money and influence.

For anyone thinking that "scandal-ridden" is "distasteful" you are just adding insult to injury to his victims.

Since Twitter fired so much developers, started to price its APIs and monetize its blue marks there are two different reactions:

- The Venture Capitalists see these moves as the best thing that ever happened. A way top put employees (mostly the software developers) and users (that get things for free) in their place.

- The consumers and employees see that the value that Twitter provided is disappearing fast as much as employer as a platform.

Many VC backed companies, and other that do not, seem to be following Twitter trends. Let's see if they are right and they can lower salaries to employees and increase prices for consumers, or if they overestimated their capability to do so.

Reddit is just another example of this trend.

> It's very hard to work around human nature and the whole "why am I paying rent like a sucker when the drug addicts on the street are getting free apartments?"

A lot of people seems to accept tax cuts for billionaires much higher than anything spend on the poor. It is all about framing and repetition.

Humans like to help other humans. The problem is that there is a push towards selfishness from the people that has the most and profits more out of it.

Facebook and other tech companies are a great example of what would have happened if AT&T had not been split up for monopolistic practices. AT&T would have become a middleman in all communications. Can you imagine having to pay AT&T and other internet providers a chunk of your on-line revenue? That is what Facebook, Apple, Twitter and others are doing.

The new monopolistic middlemen are taking a big percentage of the world economy just because they are providing the infrastructure needed to run business. They decide who can reach consumers and who cannot. It is not sustainable.

> For all the talk about the Deep State, the truly unaccountable power holders are the C-suite class.

Most billionaires realized that they do not need to be in the news or do any work, they can let the CEOs of this world take a small part of the profits and all the blame for what companies do. That is why we know nothing about the super-rich but many CEOs are always on TV. Smaller shareholders do not have power to change things.

As bad as nuclear weapons are, they still have a human being behind.

> My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being.

You can solve the problem by giving the decision to an AI... the AI will not even blink before killing the human and getting the codes. Nuclear war would come fast and swift.

As corporations "consolidate" choice disappears. More are more products are bound to be removed and only the most successful ones will remain. Only when there are medium sized companies consumers have choice.

I am still waiting for them to discover the use of fire. Until that happens we are safe.

> More recently, OpenAI shit their pants and threatened to pull out of the EU if they regulate AI too strongly.

And what many people is missing: OpenAI will NOT pull out if they do not want to follow regulations. They will be kicked out. To break regulations and continue operating is not an option, it is not their choice.

OpenAI is another example of a company pushing for an untested technology into societies without any regard for their safety.

I still remember when ChatGPT was deemed too dangerous for general use... until some higher up though decided to ignore the experts concerns in the name of profit.

As engineers we have a duty towards society. We build technology that will improve the world. Otherwise we become just common criminals.

Remember that algorithm pushed stories at Facebook is considered instrumental for the Rohingya genocide. Facebook/Meta pushed for their garbage rage-inducing algorithm sorting of posts to increase profits totally ignoring the damage that they were doing. ChatGPT is just more powerful and will have a larger impact on society.

> and jump on a moral bandwagon that appeals only to a minority of activists

Disney includes minorities because it pays off, what does not pay off is to create bad/mediocre movies. There are many movies even more progressive than the very conservative Disney that do better just because the movies are good.

> Salvador Dalí played the part of an eccentric very well, sporting a ridiculous moustache and walking around Paris with an anteater but he was very clearly an astute businessman

Like most artists that sell their work in expensive galleries. Their art is not so special but their skill to sell their personal brand is.

> I don't really know why in-app microtransactions, and especially in-app currencies, like this are even allowed in apps targeted at children.

Because they can. Corporations will engage in any behavior that is not forbidden by law and makes a profit independently on how immoral it is.

The only reason that 5 years olds are not working in mines is because it is forbidden by law, nothing else. Corporations are not people nor have any human moral values.

> In lots of respects our life's are more comfortable, but I don't think having an iPhone makes up for having a generation that'll never get on the housing market in the UK for example.

You are more right that your comment. That iPhone is being used to show you more ads, track you, show you low-quality content that appeals to basic emotions... technology can make our lives better but it can also make them worse. It is neutral.

> You can have forever growth while using 0 resources and lowering consumption, because as you say growth is a monetary phenomenon.

So, at least we agree that GDP is a bad measure and we need to come up with something better that takes into account more things that just amount of money.

> It appears true when you look at inequality but any technological development always benefits almost everyone.

Less inequality will create opportunities for better education for millions if not billions of humans. That will improve technology in ways that just producing more stuff will not.

I do not think that to tie increased consumption with better technology is true. Most of what we produce is low tech stuff like fast fashion. I will argue that producing less and having more time for leisure will also increase scientific output.

So, economic growth is not the same that technological advance. And that is one of the points of the "lefty Europeans": economy measurements are not tied to human advancement and well being but just money.

> It turns out voters do not much like stagnation; the newish premier, Giorgia Meloni, rails against “Greta Thunberg’s ideology” killing jobs.

What an absurd oversimplification. It does not even tackles the issue that most of the growth goes to very few people. There is also the idea that with redistribution of wealth most people will have more even with a smaller economy. But that are the kind of ideas that The Economist does not want in the mind of their readers.

> But they too readily dismiss the obvious solution, which is to green the economy, not throttle it.

The writer cannot even imagine a world where people consumes less.

All the article can be summarized as: "The system works for the owner of this magazine, do not change it".

> let's at least stick to current news

So, Adobe will not anymore sue users for using old versions? This is not relevant anymore? Can you provide a link that shows that Adobe retracted of this practice?

> Because they also want everything for free.

Maybe people just goes to the cheaper option available because increasing inequality has left millions with no disposable income.

This is the same logic by which people prefers cheap furniture instead of high quality one. It is not a preference for cheap but it is just what they can afford, if they had more money most people will get the higher quality version and pay the price.

> especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia

The EU was build to avoid another World War were Germany/UK/France start fighting. Once all European countries are tied economically for any of them to benefit of starting a war is very difficult.

And, of course, there is also the idea that a bigger economic area will create more opportunities and make Europe more competitive.

If anything projects like Nordstream prove that countries inside the EU were willing to increase their ties with Russia. If Russia had not initiated another war, Crimea was given a pass, there will be closer ties.

Russia has nobody else to blame from breaking ties with Europe but themselves.