deleted by creator

That's a weird argument. Most technological advancements are directly beneficial to the work of only a minority of people.

Nobody declares that it's worthless to research and develop better CAD tools because engineers and product designers are a "vocal minority." Software development and marketing are two fields where LMMs have already seen massive worth, and even if they're a vocal minority, they're not a negligible one.

AI ≠ Micros*ft

"big data" runs the content recommendation algorithms of all the sites people use which in tirn have a massive influence on the world. It's crazy to think "big data" was just a buzzword when it's a tangible thing that affects you day-to-day.

LLM powered tools are a heavy part of my daily workflow at this point, and have objectively increased my productive output.

This is like the exactly opposite of Bitcoin / NFTs. Crypto was something that made a lot of money but was useless. AI is something that is insanely useful but seems not to be making a lot of money. I do not understand what parallels people are finding between them.

To be fair, Spotify's recommendation system is the only algorithmic content feed that I feel actually gets me the kind of stuff I want rather than just exploiting my psyche, so I wouldn't be surprised if Spotify's AI integration is likewise the only of it's kind that has real benefit.

It could also be completely useless, who knows 🤷

Domain name were a speculative asset. This supports what the person you're replying to is arguing.

“Intellectual property” is a silly concept that only exists because under capitalism massive powerful corporations benefit if they can leverage the legal system to permeantly keep knowledge, innovation, and art behind a paywall, and people in society are dependent on monetary gain to survive.

We should, to the fullest extent of the law, make it such that proper credit is given to people who make things, but calling something “theft” when the person you’re “stealing” from literally does not lose anything is asinine.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that since AI is here we absolutely ought to keep it as free for the average person to engage with as possible because the corpos are gonna do it regardless of legality.

Technological advancement is cool. Widening the power divide between megacorporations and the general population and allowing rich assholes to have greater power and control over the average person is not cool, and unfortunately, that’s what technological advancement is doing.

Generally UI related stuff is opinionated framework-heavy, so the best place to start is see what technologies similar-ish apps use and then read their documentation.

No. It quite literally means that you also cannot be discriminated against for that. In fact, the protections that make it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals are the exact same protections that prevent discrimination because of your being straight, and if you were to repeal the former, the latter would be lost as well.

You have it, quite literally, entirely backwards.

deleted by creator

No people are human beings. Nott potatoes.

This is supposed to be a community for actual questions, not semi-rhetorical questions that just serve as the lead in to a bad joke.

Because of conservation of mass, children must have as much dumb in them as adults do, but because they’re smaller, it makes up a higher percentage of their volume, so comparatively, the dumb has greater effect.

Simple physics.

Hey I understand the frustration, but the person you’re replying too seems to me to be offering up their understanding of things in good faith, and if your goal is to maje the world better—good faith discussion is going to go a lot further in that.

Although if your goal is just to feel good dunking on that person, then I suppose this comment serves that goal, but I want to believe you do actually care about trying to make things better.

First off, thank you :)

Second off, I am having a hard time understanding what the statement “I agree with a lot of views from the left even though I’m on the right” means. What do you consider “views from the left” that you agree with, and what does it mean to you to say you’re “on the right?”

Why make it a right vs left thing at all. Can’t we just discuss things going on as they are without pigeonholing certain opinions as “right” and “left?”

I don’t think x y z thing is true because I’m “on the left.” I think it’s true because it’s my best understanding of reality, and that understanding of reality is generally described as “left.” If you falsify my arguments, point flaws in my understanding, or present me with a set of premises that corroborates reality better, I’ll align myself with that in a heartbeat. When you see something you disagree with, don’t just think “oh that’s leftism I don’t agree with that,” instead, try to figure out what you think the flaw is with it, and then offer that up in good faith. Worst case scenario, someone learns something.

Ok I’ve done that and didn’t figure out a line of reasoning for your assertion. Would you be willing to help me understand where you’re coming from now?

How so?

So the only question is what is the most rhetorically effective way to convince leftists that being rhetorical effective is actually really important 🤔