Womble

You do accept that bad software has been written, yes? and that some of that software is performing important functions? So how is saying “It needs to be written better in the first place” of any use at all when discussing legacy software?

The post I was replying to was saying

people will stop using it for all the things they’re currently using it for

They will when AI companies can no longer afford to eat their own costs and start charging users a non-subsidized price.

i.e. people will stop using AI when user have to pay the “real” price (what this is is left unspecified and an exercise to the reader to figure out). My point was that even if the AI price from those provided to infinity AI usage wouldnt drop to zero like they imply.

There are free open models you can go and download right now, that are better than SOTA 12-18 months ago, and that cost you less to run on a gaming PC than playing COD does. Even if openai, anthropic et al disappeared without a trace tomorrow AI wouldnt go away.

Quantum entangled communications that are impossible to evesdrop on exist now, cloud computing is the money machine that allows Amazon to keep expanding, virtualisation is used by effectively every company using computers at scale. (blockchain, I’ll admit, was pretty much all hype and vapourware other than laundering drug money and allowing speculation)

Just because there is marketing hype around a term doesnt mean there isnt anything of value there.

You are misunderstanding their point. “Good reason” doesnt mean ethically good, it means there is a sound logical connection between the action they are taking and the outcome they want to happen. In that case Microsoft does have good reason to push trusted hardware, in the same way as a bank robber has good reason to buy a face mask.

If people use guns to kill themselves, will they stop killing themselves if we take the guns away? Maybe some will, if the alternatives take so much more time, but the impact won’t be massive.

Generally yes, Suicide tends to be a spur of the moment decision to go through with it and having immediate access to a very easy, very lethal method increases the rate significantly. There have been numerous studies that show that putting up barriers at bridges etc that are commonly jumped from dreastically reduces the suicide rate from them without raising it elsewhere e.g.

Given the judege in that case flat out rejected the claim that there was any infringement for works they had legally aquired, yes.

I’m not defending it or attacking it, mearly saying that

They probably did multiple queries per day at the beginning, found out it isn’t worth it and stopped using it …

Isnt supported by the information given. The GP gave a story they made up about how usage would be falling based on nothing at all, I gave two other alternate stories about how it could be either rising in usage or remaining flat to demonstrate that we cannot say anything about rate of change from a single average.

Probably, my point was that you cant say if its increasing, decreasing or staying constant just from the number of times it’s been used. It could be that for most people its completely useless but for a small group its very usefull and they are using it more and more. Or as suggested it could be that everyone tried it a bit at first found it useless and stopped using it. Or that its kinda useful in very specific cases so it gets constantly used a tiny bit.

The “chart” that you posted, it showed barely any increase in the 1800s and massive increases in the last decades.

Its not a chart, to be that it would have to show some sort of relation between things. What it is is a list of things that were invented put onto an exponential curve to try and back up loony singularity naratives.

Trying to claim there was vastly less innovation in the entire 19th century than there was in the past decade is just nonsense.

Thats complete speculation on your part though. It could equally be people hardly used it at first then started to use it more as they found ways it was helpful. Unless you see the data there’s no reason to say one or the other.

Given that I havent expressed a preference and have never voted either Democrat or Republican in a single election (owing to not being American) I believe you may be inventing things about me.

And what I said stands, you functionally dont express a preference and what you do is equivalent to staying in bed and not turning out to vote.

So functionally, you abstain from voting and dont express a preference about how you are goverened.

The title kinda buries the lede there. I thought it was ridiculous to fine a platform just because a streamer happened to die on camera, but no, they were streaming months long abuse and torture of this guy at the hands of his co-streamers.

People make a complete mess of DIY with powertools, that doesnt mean that the powertools are the problem.

The energy usage stuff is just silly, its dwarfed by streaming and video games, never mind actually energy intensive things like heating transport and meat rearing.

You think venture capital dictates to the politburo what its priorities are in China?

Have you considered that if the worlds two superpowers are dead certain on this being an important area that they are willing to throw coutless billions of investment into, that they might know more than you do?

I think her point was that you were doing the annoying “everyone is from USA so I’ll just talk like we all are” by bringing up Trumps tarrifs when they were not the topic of conversation and are irrelevant to everyone outside the USA.

ok, but running a hairdryer for 5 minutes is well up into the hundreds of queries which is more than the vast majority of people will use in a week. The post I replied to was talking about it being 1-2% of energy usage, so that includes transport, heating and heavy industry. It just doesnt pass the smell test to me that something where a weeks worth of usage is exceeded by a person drying their hair once is comparable with such vast users of energy.