There is AI detection software. But maybe it would be expensive to run on every post. You could have a popularity threshold for it to run. No AI text can ever get popular, so there is less incentive to try.
But nuisance AI posts could still happen. Let’s be real. They will.
Maybe we need some kind of bot that labels bots. Then people can upvote and down vote as they please.
The Fed lowered interest rates. Now your savings pay nothing, and your home is too expensive. Works for boomers though. Their home being too expensive is a good thing. But they won’t live to enjoy that wealth. And now we are in a Faustian trap. Make housing affordable (important and right thing to do) and with it we have to see the a ton of normal people go underwater on a leveraged investment.
But if we slowly raise interest rates we could avoid the shock.
Side benefit. AI’s hype train depends on being able to operate at a mammoth loss for the foreseeable future. That also depends on artificially low interest rates. Raise them, not only can you make housing affordable, but you also might kill AI.
There would be some job loss. All the AI jobs would go. I’m ok with this.
gvid.tv has a downvote button. And it actually does something useful.
They are getting you used to taking emergency shots.
If you are using Google AI, then an advertizing company is starting to know you way way too much.
Gemini feels 1000x more personalized from old conversations than any other AI. That isn’t going to stay in just that chat window.
Arch is one of the most vanilla of Linuxes. Everyone wanted to run an opinionated distro. But what we needed was the opinions of developers and fewer opinions from people who think creating a distro is a sensible way to distribute art.
Arch - every package is just the software the original developer shipped, kept up to date.
“I have art work I want to share. I know. I’ll make myself responsible for the reliability of a thousand people’s operating systems. I hope my cooky ideas never come into conflict with that.” <- Not who you want indirectly changing files on your system when you use the package manager.
Was it a loud environment or was she just a soft talker? I’m pretty sure there is a Seinfeld episode on this. In fact, it’s the pirate shirt episode.
Just be glad you didn’t say yes.
I blame low interest rates.
Speculating on someone who themselves are speculating that their customer’s speculation will be fruitful is exactly what low interest rates encourage. Everyone likes the extra activity that produces on the macros, but it just makes the market less accurate.
Interest rates basically set how permissive the market is with its todo list. The problem is when you let yourself do anything, and then also let yourself get distracted doing something that might help something that you maybe shuldn’t be doing anyway. This is not a functional life. It’s a busy life, but not functional.
If you want to kill AI, raise the interest rates. It will cause a recession, which sucks. But frankly, humanity will survive a recession and it will be temporary. A higher interest rate market solves real problems that benefit actual people within a near horizon. What we don’t need is people working 14 hour days, slaving to keep their heads above water, working for companies engaged in far-off speculative race for world dominance; we wouldn’t want them to succeed at anyway. That’s 100% what we’re all doing, and it is interest rates that modulate that.
Raising interest rates will kill all of those jobs involved in that, and sadly a few more from the shock. But those people weren’t doing anything productive for humanity anyway. It’s better to have them lose those jobs and then later redirect their labor towards something productive. In the long term they are digging themselves out of having a job with their current path anyway.
It is. And it’s wrong. But part of how we got here is it was sold as not being a tax, even though it absolutely is.
The claim was it was a mandatory retirement investment program. Because the wealthy have their own retirements figured out they don’t need their payouts to continue to scale with their income, so their payments in shouldn’t scale proportionally either, under this flawed premise, since it is “not a tax.”
But why it is a tax is, one, most of us will never see a payout because the program is going to collapse before most of us retire, and therefore it is NOT a mandatory retirement program. And second, all payments in and out of government are fungible, so it really is a tax and a separate retirement supplemental program, where we use language around them to pretend they are one program.
Ironically, if we took all the money that was paid into Social Security and invested it in a real portfolio (actual investment), our generation would actually get something, and current generations would be getting significantly more retirement. The issue is that because whether you like government or not, it is a money loser. It’s basically designed to be one. That means using the government as an investment vehicle is in pure investment terms really really bad. Plus it also sets up a regressive tax as you pointed out.
It’s just that one spot. There’s a hint in this thread. https://submatrix.net/c/Economics/BP536RZXit
Are you making a 109 reference?
Do the oceans turn into regular milk or salty milk?
That is your speculation. But he has to do worse than your speculation, isn’t there a kind of infinite recursion there?
Almost all politicians are. And Epstein wasn’t the only operator. Today’s politicians act like they are, and Epstine’s operation was too far in the past for most of them.
Blackmail mills blackmail a lot people. If you had political finance money, would you finance the campaign of someone who says they are aligned with you, or someone you know will stay aligned with you? Power isn’t given to un-blackmailed people. And people who want power know this. So there is a long list of people willing to get blackmailed to get into power. They may even enjoy the part that gets them blackmailed.
Woah man. That’s what conspiracy theorists argue.
And yet when people tried to point this out earlier, they were called conspiracy theorists. There are false conspiracy theories and true conspiracy theories. That’s just how theories work. The ones that espouse true theories are then denigrated for seeing things faster than you.
This is why labeling something a conspiracy theory is not a useful way to dismiss an idea. The dismissal is only right half the time. And the other half you are missing something important, or refusing to believe something without looking into it. Instead, more correct is to critically assess what is true and false and not what is a conspiracy theory and not a conspiracy theory. It’s more work but it’s also more correct.
Who prefers the term “conspiracy theory” to be a shortcut for claiming an idea is false? A: People involved in actual conspiracies.
Also, people who use that pattern to claim something is false just generally struggle with English. Conspiracy != Conspiracy theory != False. But a common trope of a useful idiot is to claim something is false because it’s just a conspiracy. And a shocking number of people take that argument seriously. Despite the fact that this person can hardly differencial aspects in the English language, much less develop useful anticipation of how the powerful will strategize, or worse, comprehensively determine without evidence what is not possible there.
If you discuss an idea of what powerful people will do, you are technically engaging with conspiracy theory. And we can’t be having any of that!
Then demand something else as a customer.
Just cook your eggs. Chicken also has salmonella. We cook it.