The oligarchs wouldn’t like that precedent but they might go for purchasing SpaceX since it is owned by a foreigner. Kind of like with TikTok…

I am totally down for this jobs program.

Description: Elon talks about the implications to JD Vance.

Communists are just as selfish as anyone else. Their point is that if we want a better life we need to move beyond capitalism, communism is an appeal to our selfish nature as much as it is a call for cooperation.

When you trade stocks, you’re betting that you’re smarter than the person you’re trading with.

Imagine wanting to die so bad you actually do it but then you wake up in a world where you feel even more out of place.

Well, they ain’t harvesting organs for no poor folk and rich people don’t like to die

Being a billionaire is like staying alive long enough to be a villain. They were great at something but nothing justifies holding that much power for so long.

Also introduced voucher schools because he didn’t want teachers telling him laptops won’t solve education

How do they expect to reign in AI’s “unchecked power and autonomy” when we hardly do that for corporations or billionaires?

Was the paper optimizing for multiple objectives? Sounds like this project is pursuing some features that haven’t been proven

At this point it can’t be worse than what is happening now.

But he’s totally not a Nazi because he is black.

I’m suggesting that the choice between industrialization and skilled labor is a false one because China is industrialized and has a highly skilled labor force. I agree this is because of American owners seeking profit, but it seems the same won’t happen to China now that they’re industrialized.

Deskilling blue collar labor is how America gave China a manufacturing edge. What do you think will be the result of deskilling white collar labor?

Here’s a question: why don’t you take their advice seriously instead of being so sensitive to their manners?

Back when search engines worked… Pepper Ridge Farms remembers

That makes it a commodity, not art.

their argument is so broad it ends up also applying ti things like photography.

That’s what you said, so I take it as: if I give a definition that includes Photography, it will be regarded as too broad. But I went ahead and gave you part of a definition anyways.

What I said is that Art is not a commodity. I will grant you that “wanting things” and “getting things” is a form of human expression, but it is not art, that is exchanging commodities. If you can express a Generative AI scenario where someone draws upon their “values” instead of their desires then you might have an example of art. So in your library scenario, what “values” are behind their desires for “digital art”? Or is this person just wanting a certain aesthetic?

Hold up, you think the definition of art is too broad if it includes Photography but not broad enough if it doesn’t include Generative AI? Based on that I don’t think it is possible to give you a reason you would accept.

This conversation of “art” reminds me of the difference between “value” and “values”: https://davidgraeber.org/articles/value-the-antropological-theories-of-value/

If someone want high quality digital art, teaching them crochet doesn’t help them.

This is a statement of “value” not “values”. That someone wants “digital art” but there is no connection being made to their “values”, they are simply getting what they want.

Art is not a commodity, AI is.