That there is no perfect defense. There is no protection. Being alive means being exposed; it’s the nature of life to be hazardous—it’s the stuff of living.
It doesn’t really matter if it’s possible or not from a physics sense (I have no clue and am not making any statements on this).
As we both agree, he clearly just made that up and picked a random number without any thoughts.
Damn oligarchs acting all “holier than thou” and framing anyone who opposes them as “out of touch lazy, idiots” and yet their argumentation is on the level of a pre-teen. Just goes to show how they despise what they see as dirty plebs.
This is the kind of thing that makes me support use of extra-judicial methods (at least in a temporary and limited context) against global oligarchs and senior lackeys.
The host then followed up with, “Do you think we can meet AI’s energy without total blowing out climate goals?” and Schmidt answered with, “We’re not going to hit the climate goals anyway because we’re not organized to do it — and the way to do it is with the ways that we’re talking about now — and yes, the needs in this area will be a problem. But I’d rather bet on AI solving the problem than constraining it and having the problem if you see my plan.”
This is outright malicious. How exactly would AI “solve the problem”? Later on in the article (I am not watching the propaganda video) alludes to “AI … will make energy generation systems at least 15% more efficient or maybe even better” but he clearly just made that up on the spot. And at any rate, even if “AI” helps discover a method to make (all?) energy generation 15% more efficient that would still require trillion-dollar investments to modify current energy generation plants using the new technology.
Who is Schmidt to say that the returns of using the total spend in the above-mentioned scenario wouldn’t be better used on investing into wind and solar?
It would be hilarious if Pichai actually sent an email like this (or even more aggressive and truthful).
I honestly still don’t get what is meant by downvotes in this thread. To me this comes off as any opposition/critique is transphobic by default; not a viable perspective in my humble opinion.
Apologist of what? Transphobia? You are not justified in making such a statement.
By the same logic, would I be justified in labelling you an orientalist; a bearer of the “white [person’s] burden” (in the metaphorical sense)?
This is not a matter of justification or sympathy of transphobia. You can’t condemn hundreds of millions of people (billions?) as evil just because they don’t 100% align with your worldview. Especially if you know nothing about various countries’ LGBT communities and their views and priorities.
How do you know your maximalist approach is shared by the global trans community? How many languages do you speak? Have you ever been part (IRL, not online) of another country’s trans community? Living there and interacting with other people (trans and not trans).
Why are you saying that I believe that “[trans people] should [not] force their identities and pronouns onto other people?” Why are you putting words in my mouth? Is this because I provided a critique of your approach and offered a perspective from a non-english speaking country? I brought up the natal women’s spaces example because it’s a real world example that shows the limits of your approach. You don’t know whether trans folk in non-english speaking countries are in 100% alignment with you on this issue.
I will admit I don’t either. But unlike you I do have some exposure to our local LGBT community and to me this comes off as almost orientalist. You definitely have a lack of appreciation that people in other countries (trans or otherwise) may view things through a different lens and have their own strategies and priorities.
What do you mean by “the downvotes on this thread … [is a] … very good way to identify transphobic people”?
Which specific post is transphobic? Considering that you are asking for a major instance-wide ban campaign, you should expect people to question the criteria for the application of such bans.
You didn’t even provide a basic definition of your understanding what needs to be banned or what qualifies as “just asking questions”. Do you not see how this is completely unworkable?
I don’t support transphobia, but this sounds extremely aggressive and almost unworkable. Who gets to decide what qualifies as “thinly veiled transphobia”? or “transphobic dogwhistles” and what approach is used to disperse bans?
For example, in many countries some people who might be generally supportive of trans people (in the sense that they would want you to be the best version of yourself) might oppose inclusion of transwomen in natal-women’s spaces. Does this qualify for an automatic ban?
Some might claim this is transphobic, but my answer to that would be: How do you know? Do you speak the local language? Have you lived there? Do you have any knowledge about the region’s history? Do you know what the attitude of the local LGBT community is to the above-mentioned example?
We shouldn’t limit ourselves by the assumptions (and polemics) of a given region even if English is the lingua franca of the internet. A lot of people in the world speak English as second language.
Hopefully more people from lemmy.blahaj.zone can go through the general communities on lemmy.world and the like and report as many of those users as possible so they can be banned from their instance.
I would definitely oppose this without addressing specifically what qualifies as “transphobia” and what the specific policies are with regards to moderator actions. Otherwise this is just some rampage witchhunt against perceived enemies.
Makes sense.
Perhaps the ad-free prime video subscription could be a viable option if prime has a lot of your favourite shows and you are opposed to piracy?
Not judging or telling you what to do. Just thinking out loud.
I would just go with piracy if you don’t want to pay the ad free tier.
Depends on what kind of games you play. Economic strategy games (tycoons, city-builders, large scale simulation games) can easily bring even a modern CPU to it’s knees.
It seems that the ~$3.7 billion revenue figure is from this NYT article.
Some interesting background:
Roughly 10 million ChatGPT users pay the company a $20 monthly fee, according to the documents. OpenAI expects to raise that price by $2 by the end of the year, and will aggressively raise it to $44 over the next five years, the documents said.
It will be interesting to see if their predictions turn out to be true. $44 a month seems steep for a LLM, not to mention there will likely be a lot of competition both from cloud LLM providers and local LLM initiatives.
His involvement in the infamous WorldCoin provides useful insight into his character.
An oligarch and a degenerate (outside the US many oligarchs have a more or less sober understanding of who they are, although degeneracy among oligarchs is a global issue).
We are all waiting. If they don’t come up with proven revenue opportunities in the next ~18 months, it’s going to be difficult to justify the astronomical capex spend.
I was curious about their methodology for counting “internet shutdowns”.
I live in Ukraine and I have not experienced government run internet shutdowns since the full scale russian invasion. We do block russian resources (pretty easy to overcome via VPN), but that’s understandable as they spread genocidal propaganda.
The internet does go down for some providers when there are longer brownouts, but that’s related to the russians targeting the energy infrastructure. To my knowledge even frontline towns (i.e. 10km to the front) still have internet if there is capability to provide it. I believe towns ~20 km from the frontline are actually exempt from planned power shutdowns when there is too much load on the system (due to russians destroying ~60% of our electricity production capacity).
So I looked into their dataset (direct google sheets link).
And low and behold, this is what I found:
They do explicitly state that “Shutdowns were imposed by external parties in Palestine and Ukraine”, but it seems strange to include such cases considering this is different from the approach used in India.
It’s not like he will be spending the cash exclusively on blow, model escorts and yachts.
Part will go into real investments. And he is well positioned to time an AI pump and dump.
I have zero knowledge about the details and processes involved in security issue disclosure and even I get the feeling something is off about Margitelli’s post.
He can let his findings speak for themselves when they are responsibly disclosed (and then start the sensationalism).
Oh, I think Altman is smart enough to develop contingency plans to maximize benefits for himself at the peak of the hype and leave someone else holding his bags. He is a grifter, a conman, he will say his grandmother is fat ugly whore is he think he can benefit from it while “managing” the PR impact.
That being said, the contrast between the comically bombastic statements about AI utopia (that clearly benefit him financially) and the teenage-level presentation and research (the topics he brings up is serious, it is not enough to shit out a low effort blog post) is a sight to behold.
American oligarchs really believe their shit doesn’t smell.
You don’t even need to go that far.
Just need real courts (based on principles of justice and sober interpretation of corruption and criminality) and proper incentives; full asset seizure and mandatory community service (decade minimum) working as a junior janitor at an Alzheimer patient facility, with restricted access to smartphones/computers and mobility restriction to the immediate area around the facility. You could even get minimum wage while taking part in your community service program.