No. They might have reasons, but passing on violence and pain to others is never justified.

If it’s justified for one person to bully another because of trouble at home, then the other person is justified to hit back and so on. That’s how you get blood feuds. Dumb idea.

What bothers me most is that they equate a model with reality.

Quantum gravity theory is our current working model that we use to describe our observations. It’s not reality itself, and no scientist worth their money would claim that it is, because if it was, physics would be solved and it isn’t.

That’s how science works: We have observations, we build models to describe them, then we have more observations that don’t fit the old models, so we build newer models that also describe the new observations. Since we aren’t omnicient, there’s always something we can’t observe (yet) and what we can’t observe we also can’t describe.

“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone.”

This, in fact, would fit quite well to an imperfect simulation that doesn’t perfectly follow all the rules we made up when observing.

“We can solve any problem by introducing an extra layer of abstraction. Except for the problem of too many layers of abstraction.”

Considering how important WASM is, I haven’t seen a single application of it.

WASM on the server seems especially weird since it’s not much more than a bytecode interpreter. At that point you could just use a JVM, maybe with some more cut-down API to make it more sandboxed.

Every single day of my life I am grateful that my parents didn’t go through with their plan of moving to the USA when I was little.

What most people intuitively understand, though, is that public roads are expensive, not profitable and still a worthwhile investment.

It’s kinda baffling that the same isn’t intuitively understandable to everyone when it comes to public transport.

Is there such a thing as a kid that dreads playing games on a computer?

There’s HT PLA and other UV resistant options too. There’s a ton of specialized filaments by now.

But that wouldn’t make for a catchy headline, would it?

For a “general purpose” 3D printer I would totally recommend FDM.

Resin is toxic, causes allergies, is a mess to handle, needs washing and curing after printing, is usually much less UV resistant, is less durable and more expensive. The only upside it has is much, much better quality prints especially for fine details.

So if you want to print miniatures go resin, otherwise go FDM.

In regards to FDM printers, you need to decide if you want to tinker or to print. Both options are fine, but depending on whether you want to spend significant times upgrading, modding and tuning (and want to have the ability to do so), or whether you want a fire-and-forget machine that just works but doesn’t let you upgrade stuff, you need to get different devices.

Bambulab printers are the fire-and-forget kind that gets ever-more locked down but prints perfectly out-of-the-box.

Prusa or Creality/Ender are more tinker-friendly.

In the end it comes down to what you want. Read some reviews.

If you want to test the waters, get a Bambulab A1 Mini, see if you like it, upgrade to a different printer in the future.

In regards to filaments: Most filament brands are decent nowadays. It used to be that some brands were much better or worse than others, but nowadays unless you buy the cheapest crap it’s going to be fine.

The biggest difference is the material type. As a beginner start with PLA (regular, not Silk PLA, Flex PLA, HT PLA, Tough PLA or any other type of modified PLA). It prints easily, doesn’t need anything special in regards to heating or drying.

Once you mastered that, you might want to get into PETG (more difficult but tougher) and/or TPU/TPE (flexible, rubber-like).

You will likely never need more than that.

The question is what did she consent to (as in, what was the thing she did expect that this checkbox created)?

“Cameo” doesn’t exactly evoke “allow people to create fetish porn with my face”.

If the button was labelled with that or some other more clear text, I don’t think there would have been a need for this article.

And that’s pretty much the point of this article: “Beware of corporate double-speek, this harmless word here means ‘allow fetish porn with your face’”, and that kind of warning article is not only important but pretty much essential in today’s world, where “autopilot” doesn’t mean that the car is fully self-driving, and where even “full self-driving” doesn’t mean “fully self-driving”.

And the only indication one has that words don’t mean what they mean is a multiple hundred page long terms of services full of legal jargon that most people can’t understand but that legally protect the corporation.

As Marc-Uwe Kling said: “Die Welt ist voll von Arschlöchern. Rechtlich abgesicherten Arschlöchern.”

“The world is full of assholes. Legally protected assholes.”

If someone expects content moderation or the other safeguards you have in large parts of the internet it might come as a surprise that a large platform allows fetish porn content to be made with “cameos”.

Tbh, the word itself is super vague and ambiguous and doesn’t reflect what it means in this context.

Calling a non-prostitute woman a prositute is quite offensive in most languages I would guess.

Offending someone’s mom (and by extension their heritage) might be anachronistic in some regions, but it really isn’t in others.

In a situation where someone doesn’t understand the implications and a corporation can make money of their misfortune. That pretty much describes most of social media.

That’s not really language dependant but region/culture dependant.

Nigeria and UK both have English as their official language, still their viewpoint on history is quite different too.

A good Wikipedia article would include all relevant viewpoints that are based in reality, and probably even some that are not, though with a disclaimer.

Vibe coder coding “like a surgeon”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notKtAgfwDA

It’s kinda like AI upscaling.

I’d argue if something needs to be talked about in news/late night talk shows as a curiosity it’s not mainstream.

Today, streaming is totally mainstream and the concept is not something that would appear in news/late night talk shows unless there’s something specifically extrodninary (e.g. a death) that happens in the context of streaming. But the concept of streaming on its own is so commonplace, that it wouldn’t be talked about in TV.

I think you are a step further down in the a/b problem tree.

The purpose of society is that everyone can have a safe, stable and good life. In our current setup this requires that most people are employed. But that’s not a given.

Think of a hypothetical society where AI/robots do all the work. There would be no need to employ everyone to do work to support unemployed people.

We are slowly getting to that direction, but the problem here is that our capitalist society isn’t fit for that setup. In our capitalist setup, removing the need for work means making people unemployed, who then “need to be supported” while the rich who own/employ robots/AI benefit without putting in any work at all.

I agree with the sentiment, as bad as it feels to agree with Altman about anything.

I’m working as a software developer, working on the backend of the website/loyalty app of some large retailer.

My job is entirely useless. I mean, I’m doing a decent job keeping the show running, but (a) management shifts priorities all the time and about 2/3 of all the “super urgent” things I work on get cancelled before then get released and (b) if our whole department would instantly disappear and the app and webside would just be gone, nobody would care. Like, literally. We have an app and a website because everyone has to have one, not because there’s a real benefit to anyone.

The same is true for most of the jobs I worked in, and about most jobs in large corporations.

So if AI could somehow replace all these jobs (which it can’t), nothing of value would be lost, apart from the fact that our society requires everyone to have a job, bullshit or not. And these bullshit jobs even tend to be the better-paid ones.

So AI doing the bullshit jobs isn’t the problem, but people having to do bullshit jobs to get paid is.

If we all get a really good universal basic income or something, I don’t think most people would mind that they don’t have to go warm a seat in an office anymore. But since we don’t and we likely won’t in the future, losing a job is a real problem, which makes Altman’s comment extremely insensitive.