XIIIesq

This is the most pedantic reply so far.

Is the insinuation here that the AI industry is unregulated? Because I’m not against regulations that would drive these improvements.

I think it’s exactly what I’m thinking about, unless I’m missing something specific that you’d like to put forward?

If I own a bottled drinks company and the energy cost is 10p a bottle but a new, more efficient process is invented that would lower my energy cost to 5p a bottle, that’s going to be looking like a wise investment to make. A few pence over several thousand products adds up pretty quickly.

I could either pocket the difference as extra profit, lower my unit price to the consumer to make my product more competitive in the market, or a bit of both.

I think it’s fair to say that pretty much every industry is more efficient and cleaner than it used to be and I don’t see why AI would be an exception to that.

I don’t understand the hate for AI. It’s a new technology that has some teething issues, but it’s only going to get better and more efficient.

Every community is an echo chamber except for mine!

The first thought that comes to my mind is that the people in Twitter are just going to migrate to another social network. It won’t be problem solved, it’ll be problem moved.

The second thought I have is the amount of hate and comments full of misinformation on sites like Facebook. Should we ban Facebook too? And if so, where does it stop and who is it that gets to decide that a site is getting banned for “wrong think”.

Personally, I believe this isn’t so much a petition against X, but a petition against Musk, who I think wouldn’t be absolutely gutted even if X went out of business. I think he bought it with the aim of derailing anyway.

As with hate speech, the harm needs to be quantifiable. “I don’t like that people are sharing ideas and opinions that I personally disagree with” doesn’t cut it.

The price of freedom of speech is needing to hear things that make you uncomfortable every now and again. Deciding what people can and can’t write on the internet is a slippery slope.

If someone told me “I don’t like Musk, I’m going to stop using Twitter”, I’d say “good for you”. I think it’s great when people stand up for their beliefs and put their money where their mouth is.

If someone told me “I don’t like Musk, so you’re not allowed to use Twitter”, I’d tell them to go fuck themselves. It’s none of their business whether they personally like what it is that I want to do as long as I’m not hurting anyone.

Inb4: I’m not a Twitter user and probably never will be, but I believe very strongly in the freedom of expression, even when that means I have to hear things that I don’t like.

I actually can’t remember the last time I saw someone under 60 buy a newspaper. I think the cross over in the venn diagram is going to be pretty small.

How about “if you don’t like Musk, don’t use X or buy a Tesla?”

I personally don’t really like any billionaires at all, but I’m not going to get in to a hissy fit because someone uses Microsoft Windows or bought something from Amazon.

Research requires a critical mind. Think of a person you know that has average intelligence, 50% of people are more stupid than that.

And I’m not saying that stupidity is solely an issue for the republican electorate, I’m just saying “do your own research” is an unrealistic expectation.

People need to be engaged with.

More like the oligarchy now have 99% of the power rather than 98%.

The issue is that we believe we have a free democracy when the only power we have is to put an X in a box every few years. The system isn’t broken, it’s working as it’s designed to.

It was you saying that they were turning the adverts off, now you’re saying they can’t. So to call my research “armchair” is quite ironic.

The article you shared said that it’s only creators not in the YPP that don’t receive revenue but you either didn’t read it or just decided to omit that information based upon your predetermined conclusion.

A quick Google says you’re wrong, I’m not an accountant for YouTube so I couldn’t prove otherwise. Presumably if there was zero benefit to creators, they would all turn the adverts off, rather than just some of them.

I’m aware that they only get a small percentage of the ad revenue but it’s like that in every business unfortunately. When I buy a loaf of bread at the supermarket, I know that only a tiny fraction of a percent the price will go in to the checkout worker’s or farmer’s, or the baker’s paycheck, but I’m not going to boycott supermarkets because of that.

A couple of ads isn’t the end of the world for most people. Whilst I understand that they are undersirable, I also want the creators I enjoy to be able to get paid.

Some of the creators I enjoy are quite niche and they put their time, effort and money in to making the content. I don’t think a couple of ads is too much to ask to help pay them back.

More game than I had 🤷🏼‍♂️

To be fair, some phones already have that but they have much lower spec cameras/lenses, so it’s currently a trade off.

If a flag ship phone were to find away to implement a flush top spec camera, it would still only be an incremental improvement rather than a great new technology or a substantial innovation.

Yh, I’m not for bailing out companies that are “too big to fail”, I see it as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, but that’s a separate debate.

Tech stocks were a interesting case as they bloated far beyond their actual value during COVID, what happened in 2023 was probably somewhat of a renormalization and now they’re back to business as usual. There will always be peaks and valleys, but I’d be very surprised to see tech stocks fail in the long term.

I’m not going to argue that there has been no progress, just that it’s not on the same scale.

Look at the difference between phones from 2004 to 2014, then from 2014 to 2024 and surely you’d have to agree. We’re looking at huge leaps in tech and innovation Vs much smaller incremental improvements.

And I’d once again like to state that this is not a complaint, just a point of view showing that astonishing amounts of technological innovation are not necessarily required to keep companies in business.