It seems to me that --unless you really, strictly compartimentalize your browser usage--, using multiple browsers will only supply your data to more parties.

I guess you can't imagine a free, open democratic state with rule of law either. Because when broad, independent, quality journalism with a wide audience is gone, all you'll have to worry about is that poor cat in a tree in Ottawa.

This free, open democratic state with rule of law funds broad, independent, quality journalism from the public purse: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpvxgl3n138o

Until Farage becomes the PM. Then you'll find out what state funding means.

BBC is not independent high quality journalism, as we can see from how they cover Israel and Gaza and the corresponding UK protests.

UBI is a phantom. If (when?) AI takes over and everyone is put on UBI, the problems we'll deem important will be finding enough food to survive.

Does UBI not mean that one does _not_ have to worry about finding enough food to survive?

If you follow that definition, it can (and will) stop existing. Don't count on Sam Altman to keep your groceries affordable.

Sure? The website points to an article in Nature with different authors. They seem to refer to the people from Tübingen, though.

Perhaps it saves some time looking through the docs, but do you really trust an LLM to do the actual work?

Yes and an LLM checks it as well. I am yet to find a sysadmin task that an LLM couldn't solve neatly.

A nice bonus is that sysadmin tasks tend to be light in terms of token usage, that’s very convenient given the increasingly strict usage limits these days.

Yes, with a lot of reviewing what its doing/asking questions, 100%

By this point? Absolutely. They still get stuck in rabbit holes and go down the wrong path sometimes, so it's not fully fire and forget, but if you aren't taking advantage of LLMs to perform generic sysadmin drudgery, you're wasting your time that could be better spent elsewhere.

> except you get shafted

That's the point, isn't it? Creating images via AI offers nothing to society. Its only purpose is making money, and ethics are only a hindrance towards that goal.

I did a lot of AI images to show my friends and enjoy. There was definitely a benefit to society.

And my friends used AI as a replacement of stock photos and graphics in their products which offer a ton to society.

> There was definitely a benefit to society.

Because otherwise they would have gone out to the street and mugged old ladies?

> And my friends used AI as a replacement of stock photos and graphics in their products which offer a ton to society.

Yeah, that's the negative contribution. They're basically ripping off artists and designers. If those products offer a ton, some of that money could have gone towards them instead of OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.

'I dislike AI, therefore it has no value to anyone.' Who knew the international unit of truth was your feelings?

You're making assumptions, and try to frame those as childish. I dislike the current AI offerings because of their inherent negative contributions to society. "I'm addicted to/invested heavily in AI, so any criticism is flawed."

Generative art has negative value, saying it has no value is far too generous. It actively makes the world a worse place.

There is a 100% chance you will consume games / movies / media that was at least in part generated by AI, and enjoy it.

The idea that 50 years from you will still be holding out is hilarious.

Shouldn't it also be able to read email? I think that was a law too.

Anyway, the list seems like something AI scraped and has a strong bias towards "gotcha" comments from the likes of reddit.

> So [...] who cares.

I do. I prefer people not to get lung cancer, among other afflications. And for no benefit that I can think of.

I don't live in the UK, but I say: good to them, and boo to you, for your misanthropic attitude.

i this context, "who cares" means "whose business". and the answer by the western society is that no ones but person in question.

bucketing ppl by birth year is literally a discrimination.

> i this context, "who cares" means "whose business".

I don't think so, but if the original poster is around...

Anyway, it's the government's business to keep their population out of trouble.

> bucketing ppl by birth year is literally a discrimination.

Contrary to popular opinion, discrimination isn't illegal or even undesirable per se. In this case, it has a health benefit.

> Stop doing things that hurt you !! You need to live your life like a min-max optimization for max lifespan. !! You haven't done your government mandated hour of exercise today, enjoy 30 days in prison !!

This wasn't even about that. It was about selling cigarettes to others, pretending to be a romantic rebel.

And freedom isn't absolute. There's no need to exaggerate 1984 style just because smoking is banned. You don't even have to stop smoking. You just can't start.

You WILL get your state mandated 1 hour of exercise everyday and you will eat your state mandated five servings of vegetables. You will not go outside for more than an hour a day to prevent skin cancer. If you were born after 2010, you will eat the state mandated bug-based red meat replacement. You don't even need to stop eating meat, you just can't start.

Bro what

trvke

It's not always "market forces". Case in point: state sponsored hackers and trolls. What speaks against market forces here is that "the collapse of Near Eastern civilizations in 1177 BCE" is not really a profitable subject.