Well… Makes more sense than trying to robotize cars. The track is fixed and speeds and rights of passage are imposed by plain physics.

But you need tracks to implement autonomous freight trains.

That should be a crime. An electes official bound by a privately signed document? That’s rich.

You’re referring to case of an entire town council that got caught being binded by NDAs, right?

How cam those superseed the duties abd obligations elected officials have towards their constituents?

With the amount of integration it achieved to facilitate services and transactions? I am very skeptical of that. I expect to happen a serious market feagmentation and a great number of bankrupties but the void will be filled by new presences.

They’re making their bed, they better lie in it when it’s time. Even if it’s on fire. And full of rusty nails.

Are we taking numbers on the AI craze bust already? I say in the next six months, to a year.

I can agree with the assessement on how the company is aiming to bleed dry the market and is aiming to take over the business market. But honest question: what are we to understand by premium?

But even the business market is fickle. The company I work at had a scare recently with a serious security breaching. Nothing was admitted but I suspect the vector of attack was the informal Whatsapp network used to run day to day communications and it’s AI. The installed Microsoft security solutions were as efficient as a collander. I can’t imagine what was leaked. That costs money.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, would you be so kind and repeat after me: abandonware and indie games are the future!

The paradox has a lot to it and is mostly misunderstood.

I know of a case where an assault victim got a special device that relayed the proximity of their atacker starting from 3000 meters.

It was paired with the ankle bracelet and it only beeped proximity. No location. If a certain range was breeched, it would relay instantly to authorities, which are mandated to call the bracelet carrier imediatly. No answer/range reduction, immediate victim call/visit/collection.

How do you know? Honestly, how can you claim a given author will relay to a meat grinder the effort of compilling a work they will sign and be responsible for?

One added curiosity from me: at what point has the colective surrender of independent thought and action been signed and by whom?

And a final question but feel free to skip this: do you rely completely on LLMs to complete your daily life tasks or are you still able of doing things by yourself?

Thank you.

What?

You have the right to express your opinion as you may please but you’re not entitled to have me respect it nor respect you for it, but I digress.

This isn’t Reddit, sadly, because otherwise I’d give you gold for that comment.

By that logic, when all human labour - and I do mean all of it, with no exception - is no longer necessary, thus no income can be earned by any part, how will people survive? I expect them to be, at least, entitled to move out of the way and silently and peacefully disappear.

It is not an analog, in any measurement.

We are talking about a technology that been prompted, since its inception, as the leap that would render human work unnecessary - which is false under many measurements.

When that failed, it was then repackaged as the technology that would enable any person to do anything: write a book, a song, create the new Mona Lisa, write any program they needed or wanted, etc. And again, it failed.

Any major development was always geared towards solving a concrete, tangible, problem. For AI, every proponent for it is trying to find problems to fix with it.

I don’t care about the promises of AI. I care about the cost of it, now and future. It’s not a hand full of niche applications that are going to impress me. Put it towards research, make it truly useful, in the hands of people capable of forcing it to produce results and audit and validate them. It is not a toy, it is not something that can replace human beings in any measurement, it is not something people should be relegating their autonomy and individuality to, which is happening as we are having this conversation.

No need to reply to this. I’m out. I don’t care for any arguments in defence of AI and it’s potential. I’ve made my choice. Keep to yours.

Have a great one. See you around.

Congratulations. Enjoy it.

It is. It really is. At any point on any other endeavour, someone said it was enough and the costs did not justify the results. Not with this. So, it really is hard to understand.

Pass. Haven’t learn before, not interested in do it now. And if by some reason I wished to do it, I’d grab a few books on it.

The AI is a consummer of resources we can not easily dispense that returns nothing of objective and equivalent value.

Fresh words, no quotes.

More palatable now?

That is a false equivalence.

The looms, the automated treshers, the tractor, whatever machine designed to a fullfil a task that displaced human labour wasn’t designed with the objective to render humans useless. There were periods of transition when people hurt, needlessly, if I may say so, but new occupations emerged.

This is not the same.

For the first time, we are faced with a technology that feeds off human achievement to be built and next states it can dispense and completely replace what enabled it to be put together to start. While consuming resources we can not afford to waste and returning nothing of value.

A tool built through nefarious means and consuming resources it should never had chanelled into it.

Then, taking from your words, if the information these machines are working is by default outdated, why insist in feeding it with more and more and expect different outcomes?

Makes no sense to begin with.