He’s afraid.

Yeah, but have you considered that this kind of technology can’t sustain the delusion idea that you could replace all workers with a chatbot?

You’re asking the wrong questions. The institutions which created the conditions for what we are seeing now will not be able to un-create those conditions without being fundamentally altered. The reality we Americans need to internalize is that “no institutional actor will be saving us”. If we make it through the next several years without a significant, socially disruptive rupture, we will not have been saved. We will have mearly postponed it. If Democrats take power in the house, senate, and presidency, and try to recreate the pre-Trump political period, they will create a fallow field in which a less incompetent analog of Trump will grow.

The only way this stops is if Americans reject the things which have made it possible to occur, for instance, the expansiveness of the military, the legal imperviousness of the president, the inaction of the legislature, the “apoliticality” of the supreme court, the expansion of the surveillance and security apparati of the state, militarization of police forces, ect (by no means exhaustive). The people in power will not voluntarily give up power to allow this to happen.

Much of what we’re seeing now has happened before, and Americans have never rejected it before. From this I can only assume it will take a lot more deterioration before we see it end.

Great. Now i can get that “real book feeling” of wrestling the books pages to lie flat enough for me to read them as I lay down.

I’m noy saying money doesn’t matter, but Kamala Harris outspent Trump by, like, 2:1 iirc in 2024 and still lost. Clearly money is not the only factor.

So you’re saying that thorn guy might be on to somthing?

That’d be an effective total ban, because noone would want to be on a social media platform with entierly 80+ year olds. It’d be all corny minion memes.

There is no universe where that guy was going to be Trump’s successor. Nobody likes him, he’s only there now because Peter Thiel believe he will allow him to replace humanity with robots or something.

No. Go read the source material more carefully. I’ve checked like 5 of the trackers and not a single one I’ve read reports a single actual, verifiable death. Ita pure math. That doesn’t mean there aren’t deaths, it just means this is a purely mathematical estimate. The discussion should be “is this estimate reasonable”, not “lets assume this estimate is reasonable and talk about how bad Trump is”.

I took a look at the tracker they’re using as a source, and this appears to be (for the few categories I checked the methodology for) referring to mathematically projected deaths, and not literal counted dead humans. I think that’s a pretty important note, especially if we’re titling it “at least 600,000 dead”. I’m not saying noone died, but “I’ve used math to estimate that half a million people died based on this set of assumptions” is a very different statement from “We have tallied up literally half a million dead people over here explicitly because of USAID going away”

I’m not sure I’d go to them for advice…

Enshittification is a theory of what Cory Doctrow (the guy who coined the term) calls “Platform Decay”. It has three steps.

1. Make a good platform for users by offering a service and usually aggressive interoperability with other similar services to reduce switching costs.

2. Once users are locked in by network effects, make their experience worse to the benefit of Advertisers

3. Once the advertisers are locked in due to network effects make their experience worse to the benefit of investors or other equity holders.

Ok now your platform sucks but everyone ia trapped there.

Id argue most LLM services are still in stage 1.

I add a chatbot to it.

Maybe she is a. “true believer”. I suspect she’s preparing herself to run for a state-wide office. Maybe I’m a cynic.

I’ve been waiting for something like this so we can see who’s heads roll when AI fucks up. I figured we’d see doctors and lawyers losing their licenses first, but maybe it’ll be this. So, who shoulders the blame when a program that can’t learn from its mistakes fucks up a quarter of the internet?

She probably wants to run in a state wide position, and therefore needs to appeal to a broader set of people. I doubt she’s had some change of heart.

I have this sneaking suspicion that this response might be in the Russian “plan”. I have a feeling that the goal is to show that America won’t lift a finger to stop them, and thereby break NATO and badly damage US power. If Poland downs a Russian jet, and Trump says “Hey! You guys have to be nice to Russia” it will read as Russia calling NATO’s bluff while maintaining just enough plausible deniability to likely avoid even European countries from pushing for a real response.

I suspect the idea that there’s a “backsies” button that can be pressed is delusonal. Whatever comes after Trump will not be the neoliberal realism that occupied the 25 years prior to him. I strongly suspect that the idiocy of Trump’s era will give way to less incompetent right wing populism in the west in the 2030s… Maybe that’s what they’re banking on tho…

It’s ludicrously irresponsible to even use the language of “date” for this. This is straight up a category error. You can’t “date” a chatbot.

Yeah they have rights to their IP, a share of the first 100 billion in profit they might hypothetically make one day, and provide most (all, up until jan of this year) of their cloud service. They also oppose OpenAI’s bid to convert to a non-profit by year end, which a huge chunk of their funding is dependent upon. It really a strange play tbh.