Not sure if you’re aware of this, but companies break laws in the EU too.

That policy is likely illegal in the US & it certainly is extremely uncommon. I’ve never heard of it. This post isn’t an EU vs US thing which they were trying to make it.

That’s the meaning.

WTF is wrong with this thread.

No. Intentionally breaking rules just because you don’t understand their existence is not a sign of ethical thinking or intelligence.

Agree. Refusing to follow rules / policies unless you have a full explanation of why that rule / policy was made just makes you an unemployable asshole. Neurodivergent or otherwise. The idea of me explaining in detail a specific set of policies, having someone sit there smiling and nodding along, just to go right ahead and flat out ignore me would infuriate me, as it would basically anyone.

And FWIW, autistic people generally do great with rules. The disorder generally leads to people struggling in ambiguity, not black/white rules.

The original post + poster just suck

Neurodivergent people are not a monolith.

It’s almost certainly illegal in the Us too

That policy is likely illegal.

But the same can be said about gambling platforms.

Actually it’s called Super Slots. We’re rebranding to a new stronger, really a more accurate, but a strong name. Super Slots. Because the old name was actually wrong and weak. And “slot machine” made people think it was bad odds but actually, it’s good odds, good strong odds which is why we’re changing the name. We changed the name. To Super Slots. People are already calling it that I guess they really love the name.

Exactly. The standard QoL between 1800, 1900, and 2000 is immense. But between 1970/80/90/00/10/20 - it all feels extremely similar or even a bit worse. Cars vs Horse was a big change to out QoL, Landline vs iPhone is arguably lateral or only slightly up. And I feel the same can be said for the majority of innovations over the last 30 years… Like they’re nice sure, but they didn’t really revolutionize our QoL like the generation prior to the boomers experienced.

Bomers got it “as good as it got” up to now, but weer able to enjoy the average bull run of the last 50 years. Meanwhile younger generations are entering right as it started to taper off.

Some have, most haven’t. And those that have had mostly adopted the philosophy of “Every token spent is a a token spent well; except the ~10% of staff that abuse/misuse them”.

And with that philosophy, you naturally want to set the per-person budget at around the 90th highest spender. Which is what most did (some version of it).

So very few companies have actually set a truly restrictive policy. Just a “don’t abuse this” policy. But that will change IMO.

I’m saying Burry’s opinion on the timing is irrelevant.

He calls a crash basically every quarter since the '08 crash recovered. If you shorted every time he suggested something was going to burst “sooner than later”, you would already be bankrupt.

The older I get and the more I understand that boomers had literally it the easiest out of any one in history the more salty I get over them calling millennials & gen Z lazy all those years.

All you stupid oldies had to do was put like 2% of your paycheck into any index over your career and you would be rich AF right now. Which, is exactly why so many boomers are fucking loaded right now and old a historically disproportionate amount of wealth for the generation.

Frankly I’m fine with the alliance, and fine if their motivation is believing ai art is bad because it didn’t originate from a “soul”. Like fine. Believe what you want.

Now go destroy some data centers (in Minecraft ofc)

I’m not sure what the term is for when “the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but that friend is also a lesser enemy” is. But fuck it, I’m on team Jesus apparently

A Catholic Church that defends artists as policy is a win in my book.

I agree in principle. It’s getting harder to believe that is possible at this point.

A combination of 1) companies maturing their AI policy and ending the “infinite play time” model most have had since 2021 e.g. cutting spending and 2) open source and open parameter models becoming better and better and cheaper. Data centers will still be in demand for #2 but the ai providers will hurt.

He’s been saying this for 4 years

It’s among the more annoying parts of the whole AI thing, amid an ocean of things too-concerning-to-be-annoying.

“AI” / llm’s, are not artificial intelligence in the way laypeople mean it, and in the sense that LLM’s are AI - we’ve had AI for decades. Occasionally I’ll be socializing with someone I consider very intellgenet (e.x. recently, a chemical engineer) who was telling me how they just learned AI’s ‘just predict the next word’, and it just bugs me so so much how little people understand these things.

Like, they are ruining our world. Climate, commerce, security - everything is going to get a LOT shittier. And you don’t understand at a basic level how it works. It’s just sad.

Yeah and it’s not 100% correct. It makes mistakes and says incorrect things all the time - thus it shouldn’t be used to govern even if it happens to agree with you on some issues.

“The AI says the thing I like on the handful of buzzword issues I tested. Let’s hand it the keys to the entire world and let stuff get nutty”

If an AI was provably 100% correct then I guarantee you people would listen to it.

People seek for god & other higher powers for much less reasonable logic than “a machine that is always correct no matter what”.

The reality is AI as it’s known today (generative stochastic models) can not ever reach “100% correct”, by definition of being a generative stochastic model. So you’re essentially discussing a fantasy computer that we are not close to every having IRL -> It’s not relevant.

I’m not sure if there is some subtext being lost, but if your point is that we should trust AI with how to ‘save us’, then why aren’t you following it right now? It’s perfectly happy to offer an answer and it will even sound very convincing. But there is no reason to think it actually has the correct answer, or even knows what the problem is.

I’m convinved the whole “Super intelligent” thing is just to give him a response whenever asked about AI. He doesn’t understand it nor it’s risks, he just knows the people bribing him care a LOT about it. In recent interviews whenever someone asks him about AI he just talks about the “”“”“rebrand”“”“”" to SI.