We've got these things called "social media" that are built expressly for the purpose of influencing people to buy more stuff (literally in the name: influencers). And if it can get people to part with their money, you can be sure the same tools can be used to get people to vote against their own interests.
We thought the internet was a tool to spread democracy. We were wrong. The Internet is a tool used to undermine democracy, so long as people using the Internet are not strongly inoculated against organized interests, foreign, and domestic.
The noise complaints and landing safety issues are definitely a problem, but the cost savings potential and sustainability/safety effects of taking delivery trucks (or your car to the mall) off the road is a huge win.
I can see how noise and landing safety issues delivering to your property can really stall this. However, landing to an approved and managed community mailbox (or rooftop delivery zone in dense areas) might avoid some of those issues.
Marriage has all kinds of default legal implications ranging from property ownership to inheritance and tax benefits, and may also affect insurance rates.
How you are affected depends on where you live and your personal situation.
Frankly, a blanket statement like this is completely irresponsible. Consult a lawyer on these matters, people. Or spend tens of thousands of dollars later in life dealing with the consequences of ignoring your legal rights and responsibilities.
The wording of the article implies an apples to apples comparison. So 1 Google search == 1 question successfully answered by an LLM. Remember a Google Search in layspeak is not the act of clicking on the search button, rather it's the act of going to Google to find a website that has information you want. The equivalent with ChatGPT would be to start a "conversation" and getting information you want on a particular topic.
How many search engine queries, or LLM prompts that involves, or how broad the topic, is a level of technical detail that one assumes the source for the number x25 has already controlled for (Feel free to ask the author for the source and share with us though!)
Anyone who's remotely used any kind of deep learning will know right away that deep learning uses an order of magnitude or two more power (and an order of magnitude or two more performance!) compared to algorithmic and rules based software, and a number like x25 for a similar effective outcome would not at all be surprising, if the approach used is unnecessarily complex.
For example, I could write a neural network to compute 2+2, or I could use an arithmetic calculator. One requires a 500$ GPU consuming 300 watts, the other a 2$ pocket calculator running on 5 watts, returning the answer before the neural network is even done booting.
This comment implies that no humans were involved with operating the AI. Seems doubtful.
It's one thing for out of touch executives who blindly replace entire departments with "AI" while fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the department being replaced and the capability of AI, tanking the quality of the product--that's real self harm for everyone involved; it's another thing to be advancing the creative processes with more advanced tools and automation, something that we've been doing for centuries without much fuss.
The creative part of voice acting isn't just in moving one's lips. The creative part of voice acting is just as much, if not more, in feeling and direction--in deciding if a sound sample produces a certain desired emotion, and if that emotion is valuable to the overall experience or not. This is not the territory of generative AI. This is the territory AGI, which does not yet exist. Producing the sound with your lips is just a small part of that. There's still a human involved in producing the work of art (and if not, then yeah, we are back at that first category, of leadership ignorant of the creative process, and we should bemoan a crappy product lead by executives who have no clue how to retain talent).
To be fair, most tools are pretty bad at all other jobs besides the one it was made for. Same goes for an OS. If Ubuntu is made to off ramp people more comfortable with Windows, then that's just a fine purpose for aln OS.
I wouldn't describe Microsoft as a walled garden (and Canonical even less). But maybe that term comes with degrees, and different perspectives of what's tolerable.
Agreed. Some (mostly different) positions here are arguably more entrenched, or at least absolutist, with just as much reactionary down voting instead of nuanced debate.
We've got these things called "social media" that are built expressly for the purpose of influencing people to buy more stuff (literally in the name: influencers). And if it can get people to part with their money, you can be sure the same tools can be used to get people to vote against their own interests.
We thought the internet was a tool to spread democracy. We were wrong. The Internet is a tool used to undermine democracy, so long as people using the Internet are not strongly inoculated against organized interests, foreign, and domestic.