bongodongobob
Born on November 14, 2023•2392 Karma
Pretty much everyone who wasn't in on the CADIVI scam or the subsidized gasoline racket or selling $0.05 screws to PDVSA for $75 stands to benefit from a new government. Many corrupt dictators understand that stealing a small percentage of a bigger pie is a more stable arrangement that can ultimately be more profitable in the long run but the clan that ran Venezuela was so greedy they wanted to take everything as fast as possible.
That plus a power vacuum. So maybe Haiti?
Edit: Good grief. This isn't even a remotely uncommon opinion. Wanting to outlaw things because some people can't handle their shit is as old as society.
I fully reject the idea that all suicide is the result of mental illness, especially such culturally ingrained ritual suicide.
> regulation
How would you regulate this tool? I have used ChatGPT as well to brainstorm a story for a text adventure, which was leaned on Steins;Gate: a guy who has paranoia, and becomes convinced that small inconsistencies in his life are evidence of a reality divergence.
I would not like to see these kind of capabilities to be removed. Rather, just don't give access to insane people? But that is impossible too. Got any better ideas to regulate this?
I'm not going to pretend I"m smart enough to walk into OpenAI's offices and implement a solution today.. but completely dismissing the idea of regulating them seems insane. I'm sure the industrialists ~100 years ago thought they wouldn't be able to survive without child labor, paying workers in scrip, 100 hour work weeks, locking workers in tinder boxes, etc. but, survive they did despite the safety and labor regulations that were forced on them. OpenAI and co are no different, they'll figure it out and they'll survive. and if they don't, it's not because they had to stop and consider the impact of their product.
I don't think OpenAI should be liable for insane behavior of insane people.
And before you say it: there’s a massive difference between the legalese they put in fine print in their user agreements and mutter under their breath in sales presentations versus what is being shouted from the rooftops every single second of every single day by their collective marketing departments.
It seems similar to Waymo which has a fairly consistent track record of improved safety over human drivers. If it ever causes a fatality in the future I'm not sure it would be a fair comparison to say we should ban it even though I'd want to be fairly harsh for a single individual causing a fatality.
We should work to improve these products to minimize harm along with investigating to understand how widespread the harm is, but immediately jumping to banning might also be causing more harm than good.
To be clear, I am not blaming the tech. I am blaming the people designing it who are well aware of the flaws/dangers but are doing little to nothing to mitigate that because it would affect their bottom line.
And I want those people held accountable for their reckless negligence.
This is where we’re at.
I find it very odd when people proudly proclaim they used, say, Grok to answer a question. Their identity is so tied up in it that if you start talking about the quality of the information they get incredibly defensive. In contrast: I have never felt protective of my Google search results, which is basically the same thing given how most people use these tools currently.
It’s kind of wild how hostile some people get if you attempt to open the discussion up at all.
They also don’t care about the communities they are impacting in the slightest. https://lailluminator.com/2025/11/22/meta-data-center-crashe...
> the tendency for wages in jobs that have experienced little or no increase in labor productivity to rise in response to rising wages in other jobs that did experience high productivity growth
Specifically, manufacturing sectors have increased productivity and service sectors haven't.
For individual services what that means is that for something like Google Search there will be dozens of projects in the hopper that aren't being worked on because there's just not enough hardware to supply the feature (for example something may have been tested already at small scale and found to be good SEO ranking wise but compute expensive). So a team that is able to save 1% CPU can directly repurpose that saved capacity and fund another project. There's whole systems in place for formally claiming CPU savings and clawing back those savings to fund new efforts.