In principle I agree. The problem is that there are countries which don’t care about respecting law and if you kill AI in the West, all that will happen is the West will get left behind.

Unfortunately only found liable, not convicted

Well, to be fair, how would he know?

Because this is custom contract work and the requirements-gathering phase of custom contract work is complex even when it’s human-to-human. A contractor doing requirements-gathering needs to understand the real-world context to a human level. Maybe “never” was an overstatement, but we’re still nowhere near developing an AI capable of navigating real-world context beyond extremely formalized systems such as road navigation. This isn’t like text generation where it happens in a second and the operation costs nothing more than what it costs to run the computer that does it so if the AI generates stupid text you can just rephrase the request and try again at minimal cost. Miscommunications in trade work result in waste of time and materials. We’re way off.

Performing a job like that would require so much context understanding that even if they made a robot capable of physically executing the vast array of required physical tasks, it would still require a human plumber to operate the thing, ie even if it was a matter of simply giving it instructions to carry out, a customer would not have the necessary knowledge to know what exact instructions to give. You’d still need a human with plumbing knowledge to give the proper instructions. We might need FEWER plumbers, but we’ll never need NONE.

You think an AI is gonna come to your house and unclog your toilet?

Note: “mo chara” is Irish for “my friend”

The only way in which shares can more-or-less translate to real money at their face value is if you use them as collateral on a loan. This is how rich people are rich: they use their shares to take out loans which provide them with spendable money. Money now is always more valuable than money in the future, due to inflation and opportunity cost, so most rich people are almost always in monumental amounts of debt, but because they were able to spend a bunch of money up-front, they’re able to invest in things that bring them even more money to pay the debt off. Example: if you had the money to buy a house and rent it out to tenants, the rent you receive will EASILY cover the mortgage - the trick is getting the collateral to get a mortgage to begin with.

The only danger is that banks and lenders write in a clause that if your share prices (ie the collateral the loan relies on) drops below a certain value, you are forced to sell the shares off and give them the proceeds, so that they can recoup at least some of the money they lost on your bad collateral before it devalues completely. This could, theoretically, happen to Musk if $TSLA drops below a certain threshold, which is what half the Internet seems to be hoping for.

See, that’s bullshit because you can’t be outraged that Harvard admits foreigners but also pretend to not care about or be affected by Harvard at all.

This however highlights the fact that foreign students used to be a source of revenue for the USA. This is wealthy European money that was getting spent in America but now will likely be spent somewhere else.

This is also denying American Harvard business students the opportunity to establish lucrative connections with European money. You’ve heard of “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know”? Poor Harvard students on a full scholarship who plan on setting up their own business someday could have benefitted from being classmates with the future queen of Belgium.

My point being that even if you fully subscribe to “America first”, this is still a really dumb policy that’s shooting America in the foot. Foreign students studying in America were, by definition, bringing money into America. No longer.

What you consider proof and what I consider proof might be different, so do you have a link to show what, SPECIFICALLY, you’re talking about? I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m just saying I don’t believe stuff randos on the Internet tell me unless they have links so I can know what they know

Buy fairtrade bananas; it’s relatively easy to switch

Poe’s law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Poe’s law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious”.[4]

The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article.

The original statement of Poe’s law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]

I have to wonder: if headlines didn’t specifically point out how this is a snub to Trump, would Trump even notice shit like this happening? Or understand its negative implications for him? Sometimes it feels like the news media is intentionally trying to get him riled up.

Fun fact:

“Reign” is what a monarch does. “Rein” is the strap with which a rider controls a horse. When a rider allows a horse “free rein”, it means the rider is holding the reins loosely so as to allow the horse to steer itself.

I have saved you a letter!

It’s been deleted so don’t blame lemmy

Tell me more!

Not all job creation is a net benefit to the public interest. Wars give lots of people jobs.

You may be interested in Community Land Trusts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust