CarbonIceDragon

I think that the general idea of artificial intelligence in education hold some promise, in the sense that if you could construct a machine that can do much of the work of a teacher, it should enable kids to be taught in an individual way currently only possible for those rich enough to afford a private tutor, and such a machine would be labeled as an AI of some kind. The trouble is, like with so many other things AI, that our AI technology just doesn't seem to be up to the task, and probably just won't be without some new approach. We have AI just smart enough for people to try to do all the things that one could use an AI for, but not smart enough for the AI to actually do the job well.

Tbf one if the use cases for display technologies with high pixel density is vr headsets.

Well no, but I was more referring to the general statement than the notion that it applies to musk. Having the self awareness to see the harm in what he's done and those he's supported doesn't seem particularly in character for him in any event.

I mean, if someone was to argue about that topic they could probably examine like, Oskar Schindler or John Rabe or such, but that's besides the point I suppose.

Something I do wonder about these laws: could a person self-hosting a private fedi instance that only they have an account on, argue that they meet age verification requirements by virtue of personally knowing the age of the only user? Or at that point would the whole network of federated servers count as the "platform" rather than the instance?

While I don't think this scenario likely, something that I can't help but thinking when this sort of statement comes up is, well, how do we know what it's doing isn't thinking? Like, I get that it's ultimately just using a bunch of statistics to predict the next word or token or whatever, but my understanding was that we have fairly limited knowledge of how our own consciousness and thinking works, and so I keep getting the nagging feeling of "what if what our brains are doing is similar somehow, using a physical system with statistical effects to predict stuff about the world, and that's what thinking ultimately is?"

While I expect that it probably isn't and that creating proper agi will require something fundamentally more complicated than what we've been doing with these language models and such, the fact that I can't prove that to my own satisfaction makes me very uneasy about them, considering what the ethical ramifications of being wrong about it might be.

Probably because they didnt go throught the government, which takes a long time to move on anything, and just put pressure on some profit seeking corporations that just want to get a bother to go away, but which also unfortunately have been put in a position of practical power equal to some types of legislation.

I think the reasoning is something like this: these companies employ such call center employees for a reason, either they legally have to for one reason or another or they've determined that in some way, it is more profitable to have the capacity for people to call them than not. If the call centers are swamped, then they still cost the company money, but their benefit to the company is reduced, because the "real" calls can't get through in a timely fashion. As such, it's in the company's interest to avoid having people spam them, and if the policy those people want changed won't really cost the company anything to change, then just doing that might be the most profitable option for them.

It was more like hyperbole on my part, I was using as a catch all for whatever kinds of things a business could abuse it's position by doing. I didn't want to just say "be able to do businesses or not do business with whoever they want", because I wanted to say something more broad than just applying to payment processors, even if choosing not to do business with someone and thereby shutting them out of much of the economy is the way a payment processor would do this .

I don't think that businesses, not being individuals, should actually have the same rights as individuals I guess. I don't really agree with the idea that a corporation should be able to do whatever it likes by default, simply because I think corporations in general have too much power to be trusted with such.

I mean, when your service is fundamental enough to the economy, and centralized enough to make just going to an alternative a major hassle, if an alternative without a similar policy even exists, then why should they get that say? The power to effectively ban the sale of certain types of thing, or force media platforms to censor certain types of content, is the sort of power we generally reserve for governments, not private entities that can do whatever they want. Honestly they're important enough these days that they should basically be treated like some sort of public utility in my view.

Is there literally anything that would be worse to use financing to buy than DLC?