foxglacier

6 ms·

31.
by foxglacier 2mo ago
I think you're forgetting that this is a drone boat, so it wouldn't have anybody onboard.
32.
by foxglacier 2mo ago
They are not out of reach - people just increase their expectations to ensure that they never achieve satisfaction. I think that's fine but it is optional - if you want to just exist without striving for anything, nobody's stoppin
33.
by foxglacier 2mo ago
And if the solution turns out to be "we don't need those skills anymore", what will happen to those subsidized people? Better just let them find work wherever they see a demand. Software has gutted many other industries of co
34.
by foxglacier 2mo ago
Now imagine if other researchers do some other experiments to test the same theory and it actually ends up having some predictive power. But they won't, and it won't. This'll just be another isolated curiosity that contribute
35.
by foxglacier 2mo ago
You're not disagreeing. They're different ways of acquiring a purpose but they're both acquiring a purpose.
36.
by foxglacier 2mo ago
Do you have empathy for rent-seekers in other domains when they get undercut by cheaper alternatives? Property investors? patent trolls? Record labels that own the rights to music from long-dead artists finally reaching the end of their cop
37.
by foxglacier 2mo ago
You can't steal someone's art style because they never owned it in the first place. It's not copyrightable. It's good and right for AI to copy artists' styles - it can produce more work more cheaply for those who wa
38.
by foxglacier 2mo ago
I don't think exact copies are what anybody is worried about. It really is the information itself. The GP's been lulled into thinking he owns the knowledge when he only owns (some) rights to the creative way he wrote it. It really
39.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
You might have overlooked that the person who replied isn't the person you asked the question to.
40.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
The same rails that failed to ban coal power in the 1990s? That controversially both did and didn't ban nuclear power? And what about satanic rituals? People rightly disagree on decisions that have unknown consequences in either direct
41.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
You seem to assume it'll be a problem. My bet is group 1 is right and everyone agrees with them except a few nutters on the internet who like to fantasize about environmental damage from everything good.
42.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
>Almost all the records are being set at weather stations that can't measure change in the climate due to urban corruption or being sited at runways. OK - challenge that claim head-on if that's your concern. It's only abou
43.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
I see. Sounds like you're future-proofed. I know some retired people also have a pretty good life with their hobbies and family. But I doubt most people will cope well - especially young men who never even had profession or any way to
44.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
You don't flush your wees down the toilet!!? Why on earth not? Is your country somehow unable to provide municipal water?
45.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
You say "will" but have you been without work for many consecutive years and continued to do those things? Unemployed people tend to neglect their homes! It's much easier to imagine doing that work than to actually do it. I k
46.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
Yes, caring for people might be the one thing that remains. I can't imagine gardening or programming would be very satisfying in post-scarcity-land where you're inevitably doing something entirely useless compared to what machines
47.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
The Romans didn't have a need to pump water from coal mines because they hadn't yet cut down all their fuel forests or exhausted all their surface deposits of coal. Newcomen's engine was so inefficient, it needed to be at a c
48.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
Are you sure you would thrive without a job long term? I know it's very easy to feel that way when you're working because your pay is proof that you're doing something valuable, the requirement to do your job even when you do
49.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
It's always been like this - businesses signal that they have piles of money to burn by burning it on expensive advertising. Before AI, you would have been dubious of an ad that was amateurish/clipart/etc. because it shows th
50.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
It's worth keeping in mind the purpose of copyright. It's a pragmatic tool to encourage investment in creative work for the benefit of everybody/consumers. We may be entering a time where there's less need to incentivize
51.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
No. Plenty of people are in that boat - look at youth unemployment in many countries - or housewives. And yet somehow workers seem to do the most creative work.
52.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
Never heard of hemlock or mushrooms? Crazy people already have! Run for the hills!
53.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
I know what it means. "you're not fighting the sun's heat" means "the paint is fighting the sun's heat" but that's no explanation of how it could mean that. I say it's backwards because clearly w
54.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
You're using the dishonest argument technique of strawmanning. The claim you're sarcastically criticizing is not one that he made. It's one you created yourself just so you could ridicule it. You did this before too with your
55.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
Wouldn't immigration be a real effect too, not just poor measurement? If a person moves from a low emissions per-capita country to a high emissions per-capita country, the emissions attributable to that person would increase because of
56.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
But that's backwards. I took it to mean the rails or the engineers are no longer fighting (coping with) heat input from the sun because the rail never receives that heat when it's reflected away by the paint.
57.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
I wonder if this fatalism comes from a feeling that the enormous power of AI must somehow come with some sort of proportional cost. There isn't really any clearly known cost so maybe that's why people talk up the water and global
58.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
That sounds noble until it doesn't work in reality and people always find reasons to justify wars. If it was so simple, it would be easy for most people to get on board with and most wars would end. For example, do you agree that Brita
59.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
Oh god what's wrong with you people? Can nobody just be direct and say "I don't accept the UDHR and I believe this other thing that's incompatible with it"? Or "I believe the meaning of that article of UDHR is
60.
by foxglacier 3mo ago
Are you saying those researchers got their upper bound too low? You should inform them of their mistake.

More ›