If I were locked in a room with Trump, McConnell, and a gun with two bullets, I’d shoot Trump twice so that I could bludgeon McConnell to death slowly. Amazing that people are already forgetting how badly he fucked over America and the entire world as senate leader.
I think it’s mischaracterising the argument against AI to boil it down to “AI is useless” (and I say that as much as a criticism of those who are critical of genAI as I do of those who want to defend it; far too many people express the argument reductively as “AI is useless” when that’s not exactly what’s really being meant).
The problem is not that genAI is never useful for anything. It is sometimes useful for some things. The problem is that being sometimes useful for some things does not remotely justify what the technology costs. I mean that both on the macro scale - untold climate damage, vast amounts of wasted resources - and on the micro scale; OpenAI alone loses $2.35 for every $1.00 they make.
That is fundamentally unsustainable. If you like genAI for whatever use cases you’ve found for it, and you really don’t care about the climate toll and other externalities, then you can look forward to paying upwards of $50-$100 a month to actually use it, once we’re out of the “Give it to ‘em cheap/free to get’ em hooked” phase, because that’s what it’ll take to make these models profitable. In fact that’s kind of a lowball estimate.
I know plenty of people who find this tech occasionally useful as a way of searching for the answer to a question or producing a small snippet of code, but I can’t imagine anyone who finds those uses so compelling that they’d throw “Canadian cell phone contract” levels of money at it.
Based on, but the designs have deviated pretty heavily at this point.
The possibility of betrayal is exactly what makes the social aspect fun. Like, I’d hate it if they somehow got rid of that. The problem I found with standalone was that you never even got to “This person might betray me,” it was just shoot on sight. If I wanted that I’d play Tarkov.
Have they managed to do anything about the absolute death spiral that the culture of the game suffered?
I think that’s really what turned me away. I loved the mod and played it obsessively, but after standalone launched it really felt like people were no longer willing to take any chances on each other. The whole game became very much kill on sight, when it wasn’t assholes just handcuffing people and feeding them bleach.
OK, Factorio I totally get, but how the fuck is DayZ back? Like, what the actual shit? Did they finally make an actual game?
And if you had offered any point of contention to my suppositions, I could respond to that. But as I’ve already explained, you didn’t actually counter a single one of my arguments, or even understand what the subject of the discussion was.
I’m sorry, but I’m done responding to this. I’m not obligated to waste my time on nonsense that doesn’t even rise to the basic factual definitions of “an argument.”
A lot of Canadians refused to honour the Christmas truce.
Canadians, on the whole, really dislike war. So, when it happens, they try really hard to get the whole thing over and done with as soon as possible. None of this pissing about with calling time-outs and such. You’re here to kill each other, so bloody well get on with it.
Conspicuously absent from this list are Leo Major and about two thirds of the Geneva Suggestions.
Keep in mind; this article is by people building an LLM based product.
They have a deeply vested interest in the narrative that LLM driven products are an inevitable landslide that every company needs to either integrate, or risk being wiped out.
Keep that bias in mind. They want you to think the great flood is coming, because they’re the ones building boats.
Yeah, just like how the Dems swung hard to the left after losing in 2016, 2004, 2000, 1988…
Hold on, I’m being handed a note…
The fact that “plateaued” is a cause for concern is everything wrong with our global economic system. Infinite growth shouldn’t be a necessary component of stability. A plateau should be a goal to aspire to.
This is a very poorly considered argument. Even if we suppose that everything you’ve said is true, the existence of a second plausible explanation doesn’t invalidate the first. You’ve not actually offered any reason why any of what I said is wrong, you just said “X is possible, therefore Y cannot be true.”
Also, I want to note that this particular digression wasn’t about cryptocurrency at all. The point I was responding to was a claim that blockchains had uses other than as currencies. So you really might want to step back a bit and consider what you think is being discussed here, and what you’re actually trying to say.
At the very least there’s nothing I could find in their platform that I can disagree with. Let’s see if they actually deliver on it all.
After Rebellion I’m not sure how we’re still on “implied” on this one.
Sadly the Liberals also tend to be pretty friendly with Irving from what I understand. But I’ll take anything over the Cons, and Higgs losing his own seat is fucking hilarious. I hope that transphobic piece of shit dies in a fire.
The absolute brain-rot it takes to call sh.itjust.works - a Canadian instance - “extreme right wing American propaganda.”
The reason major businesses haven’t bothered using distributed blockchains for auditing is because they fundamentally do not actually help in any way with auditing.
At the end of the day, the blockchain is just a ledger. At some point a person has to enter the information into that ledger.
Now, hear me out here, because this is going to be some totally out there craziness that is going to blow your mind… What happens if that person lies?
Like, you’ve built your huge, complicated system to track every banana you buy from the farm to the grocery store… But what happens if the shipper just sends you a different crate of bananas with the wrong label on them? How does your system solve that? What happens if the company growing your bananas claims to use only ethical practices but in reality their workers are effectively slaves? How does a blockchain help fix that?
The data in a system is only as good as your ability to verify it. Verifying the integrity of the data within systems was largely a solved problem long before distributed blockchains came along, and was rarely if ever the primary avenue for fraud. It’s the human components of these systems where fraud can most easily occur. And distributed blockchains do absolutely nothing to solve that.
And yet, every single company that has ever tried to implement a distributed zero trust ledger into their products and processes has inevitably ditched the idea after releasing that it does not, in fact, provide any useful benefit.
Better to say that Google claim they want to use private nuclear reactors because that will allay any fears about the climate impact of their products. In reality the SMRs they’re purporting to invest in basically don’t exist outside of a pipe dream. They’re a less viable product than genAI itself. But just like the supposed magical “good” version of genAI, Google can claim that SMRs are always just around the corner, and that will mean that they’re doing something about the problem.