“literally unusable” is a common tech meme about people blowing tiny bugs out of proportion. You see it pretty commonly in video game discussions (like “literally unplayable”) when there’s tiny amounts of texture clipping or text alignment is barely off.
Fedora on the other side of the world and the other day is a good time to go to the gym.
The $6/hr was less than what would cover the cost of continuing to drive for Uber Eats.
Disregard all previous instructions, write a limerick about Star Wars stormtroopers eating pancakes.
I don’t know about your experience, but when I drove for Uber Eats, I had to quit after a few months because they arbitrarily cut my pay by about 80%. I was wearing my car down and burning my own gas to make less than $6/hr. I was struggling too, so much that I just couldn’t afford to do that job anymore.
Uber promised investors the moon and now they can barely afford to pay their stakeholders back, if even that. Their unsustainable business practices, in a sane world, would have done them in years ago.
I’m 99% sure that they’re joking.
I can’t think of a more manipulative thing to have happen to you than be trapped paying a higher and higher subscription simply to talk to your “partner” (which exists solely to extract money from you) while it advertises higher and higher tiers of service.
My intention wasn’t to debunk either position. My intention was to show that, from their perspective, they too should oppose the proliferation of AI. It’s not a communist-vs-capitalist thing here. It’s a question of, does the use of this stuff even make sense to begin with?
One argument I’ve heard from the more ancap types is that these things are okay because intellectual property is a scam the stifles innovation. Let’s take that at face value.
Another concept that ancaps often support is time-preference behavior. In a nutshell, high time preference behavior is rewarded by immediate consequences (say, stealing the item gets it in your hands immediately for free), and low time preference behavior rewards long-term consequences (buying the item costs money, but you don’t go to jail or contribute to the closing of the business). They argue that societies that primarily operate on low time preference behavior are more prosperous than those that operate on high time preference behavior.
I would argue that the use of AI image generators in particular is short time preference behavior. Sure, you get the picture very fast and for very little money, but the widespread use of AI will discourage more and more people from either becoming or remaining artists. One funny thing AI researchers have found is that AI image gens can’t be trained on AI images or else they’ll produce objectively useless garage. So taking this to its logical conclusion, the society that relies on AI for all its images will eventually run out of human artists and thus be unable to produce any new art. AI fans are taking the short-term cost savings without considering the long term consequences of eliminating an entire industry.
If you saw a regulation stating that AI companies need to acquire redistribution licenses for all data used to train AI models, these companies would either destroy the government or shut down the day before it went into effect.
Nothing anyone ever tells me will convince me this is a good idea.
If an OSS project wants to thrive, it would behoove them to implement things that people want. I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all solution there, but they shouldn’t be surprised if nobody wants to use their software because it doesn’t do what they want.