It’s possible to. Are they? Correct me if I’m wrong, but they’re not. They’re going after Microsoft and not Google.

Not that it makes any difference since Edge is just reskinned Chrome now anyway. If it was still it’s own thing I’d be rooting for Microsoft, at least up until they start to become bigger, then I’d turn on them.

No, but they should be public to everyone, and not hidden unless you jump through hoops.

It’s not implying he can’t be bothered, but that the machine can do a better job.

…which may be true, depending on just how bad he is at writing. Like, I was just watching this classic the other day. If this guy writes like some of those people, the machine may infact be better.

That said, for most people it’s stupid, and the tech isn’t able to do a better job at expressing such things.

Yet.

Thank you, I understand better now. So in theory, if one of the other search engines chose to not have their crawler identify itself, it would be more difficult for them to be blocked.

I’m kind of curious to understand how they’re blocking other search engines. I was under the impression that search engines just viewed the same pages we do to search through, and the only way to ‘hide’ things from them was to not have them publicly available. Is this something that other search engines could choose to circumvent if they decided to?

Better to acknowledge it in a response. I prefer to do that myself if I’m wrong or something of that nature, post a reply acknowledging instead of trying to cover up that I was ever wrong in the first place.

It irritates me that so many forums and media sites allow you to edit your posts at will. There’s one site I go to that I like very much - it has a 5 minute edit window, and after that, your post can no longer be edited. You can’t change what you said, pretend you never said things, etc, once you say something it remains. It would be nice if more sites were like that. Or at least, if you edit/delete something, for there to be an option to check the history to see what it used to be, so if you try to delete some comment you made people can still check it. Whether it’s informational, or it’s because you’re trying to hide something you said that you realize was actually super shitty and people are getting angry at you for it, I prefer things to stick.

If they raise the prices in those countries they would make less money because volume of subscribers would go down enough for total income to decrease.

If they lowered the price in the US, they would make less money because the subscribers they would gain would not be enough to offset the reduced income from each.

That’s it, it has nothing to do with operating costs or fairness, it’s just a question of what price point they believe will make them the most money in a given market.

Yup, exactly. The only regulation I’d be in favor of for AI is this: if it was trained on data which can be accessed by or was posted by the public, it must be freely available, such that if anything in the training data was posted online in a way anyone can see, then then I have free access to tge AI too.

Basically any other regulation, even if the companies whine publicly, is actually one that benefits them by raising the barrier of entry and making it more expensive for small actors to create AI tools.

I did years ago when Google started censoring my search results even with safe search off.

Unfortunately Bing is doing it too now and I can’t find a search engine that isn’t, though I would love to learn about one that isn’t.

I think abolishing intellectual property would hurt capitalism more than it would benefit it. Already it is strongly in favor of the rich and the big corporations. Getting rid of those limitations even without abolishing capitalism first, would, I think, be more to everyone’s benefit than detriment.

Yeah, since we’ve designed our world for humans, the best general purpose robots will have a human shape in order to function effectively in the same areas.

If it can possibly be done without a revolution, that is by far the better and easier choice.

Revolutions are messy, difficult, a great time for power seekers to consolidate power and eliminate the competition, and in the history of mankind, most of them have not resulted in positive change.

They are extremely dangerous, and should never be considered anything other than an absolute last resort when nothing else has any hope of working anymore.

Famine is probably a good indicator of when the situation is bad enough for a revolution to be a potentially rational choice. If significant portions of the population are in danger of famine, then it may be time for a revolution. We are quite far from that point still, fortunately.

One problem is people see those whose work may no longer be needed or as profitable, and…they rush to defend it, even if those same people claim to be opposed to capitalism.

They need to go ‘yes, this will replace many artists and writers…and that’s a good thing because it gives everyone access to being able to create bespoke art for themselves.’ but at the same time realize that while this is a good thing, it also means the need for societal shift to support people outside of capitalism is needed.

Wish is a 9th level spell. Archwizards with 10th and 11th level spells (we’ll leave out the one overachiever who cast a 12th level spell) find it quaint.

Lorewise, wish is only more powerful than meteor swarm, or Mordenkainen’s disjunction, or prismatic sphere, or other 9th level spells because it has a high cost - if we go back before 3rd edition, that cost was aging 5 years. In 3rd and 3.5 it was experience points. In 5th, it’s a smattering of minor problems and a 33% chance of losing the ability to cast the spell again. But essentially the concept is always that it takes something of your life or soul or physical fortutide to allow the spell to exceed ordinary 9th level spells.

This means it is ultimately a powerful but limited spell, both in the rules and in lore.

It’s not really anything other than someone’s death. It’s more ‘these wishes are safe and will work out how you want’. Anything beyond those, the DM is encouraged to respond appropriately. In 5th edition, there is actually very little that is listed as safe to wish for. In 3.5 the list was short but highly useful. In 2nd though, there were NO explicitly safe wishes. Anything could backfire.

If you wish for a reasonable outcome that’s not on the safe list, you should get it without too much trouble, but if you wish something that’s grossly unfair, then you get what’s coming to you when it backfires.

It should be noted that this should not work. In every version of the game I am aware of, the spell description for wish explicitly calls out wishing an enemy dead as something the spell should not be able to accomplish. The typical monkey’s paw that is described as happening when you attempt to wish a person dead is that you are propelled forward in time until after they die, effectively removing you from their lifespan. This is part of the 5e description of wish as well.

For example, wishing that a villain were dead might propel you forward in time to a period when that villain is no longer alive, effectively removing you from the game.

Vlaakith is an ancient and powerful enough lich that it is entirely reasonable she has the means to kill a low level adventurer like the protagonist of BG3, even from her safe stronghold on another plane of existence, however, the particular method they chose to have her do it in is explicitly called out as something that is impossible, and shouldn’t have been used, if only because it sets a bad example for people who have never played D&D and BG3 is their first experience with it.

Don’t discount the generative AI either!

Language generating AI like LLMs: Though we’re in early stages yet and they don’t really work for communication, these are going to be the foundation on which AI learns to talk and communicate information to people. Right now they just spit out correct-sounding responses, but eventually the trick to using that language generation to actually communicate will be resolved.

Image/video/music generating AI: How difficult it is right now, for the average person to illustrate an idea or visual concept they have! But already these image generating AI are making such illustration available to the common person. As they advance further and adjusting their output based on natural conversational language becomes more effective, this will only get better. A picture paints a thousand words…and now the inverse will also be true, as anyone will be able to create a picture with sufficient description. And the same applies to video and music.

That said I love your managing production point. It’s something I e been thinking too - centrally planned economies have always had serious issues, but if with predictive AI we can overcome the problems by accurately predicting future need, the problems with them may be solvable, and we can then take advantage of the inherent efficiency in such a planned system.

People whose jobs can be taken by AI means every human. ALL OF US. It’s just a question of how soon. Some jobs will still need humans for several decades, others will not.

What we all collectively need to do is acknowledge that we are winning. This is the endgame of civilization, and our victory condition is 100% unemployment, because no one should be required to work.

But we need to acknowledge that tying a person’s means of living to a ‘productive job’ is no longer viable, and people need to live even without doing something ‘productive’.

It can only produce models that we tune on datasets. Those datasets being copywritten content.

That’s called learning. You learn by taking in information, then you use that information to produce something new.