“It’s fine if a person does it” is a fantastic argument. Saying that it’s ok to allow robots to continue to replace every part of human life will only lead to suffering for literally everything in existence. Computers can destroy and create in milliseconds what might take humans a lifetime to achieve. If this isn’t an incredibly good reason to regulate the shit out of ai then what is?!?!?
Like yes, currently generative AI use is incredibly difficult to get something non-derivative, e.g. using it as a tool like Photoshop. But that most definitely will not be the case in a few years. This is by far the steepest, slipperiest, most ridiculous slope we could be on and it’s not even close.
This is the biggest problem with technology, regulation is reactionary and not preemptory. Not taking action immediately has already gotten earth into a ridiculously bad situation. If we continue to allow it it’s only going to get worse and harder to undo.
There’s a second edition, I’m not sure how good it is, but the first edition is excellent and will make sure you understand every part of the computer.
I also recommend the course Nand2Tetris and its accompanying book The Elements of Computing Systems, where you will build an actual computer from the ground up with just code.
He adds that the space issue would be compounded by Uber and Instacart drivers, who need somewhere to park while they pick up orders for customers.
Maybe with the bus lanes your new traffic from getting bus loads of people to your doorstep will mean that people don’t need to get food delivery as much.
I’ve almost completely stopped using them, unless I’m stuck at a dead end. In the end all they have done is slow me down and make me unable to think properly anymore. They usually write way too much code, especially with tab complete stuff, resulting in me needing to delete code after hitting tab (what’s the point even, intellisense has always been really good and now it’s somehow worse). They’re usually wrong unless prompted multiple times. People say you can use them to generate boilerplate, but just use a language with less or no boilerplate like Kotlin. There’s usually very subtle bugs they introduce or they’re solving a problem that is simply documented on stack overflow, while I wouldn’t be using an LLM if I could just kagi it, so they solve the wrong thing.
One thing it’s decent for, if you don’t care about code quality, is converting code to a language you do not know. You’re not going to end up with good idiomatic code at the end, but it will probably function.
None of this is to say that the LLMs aren’t amazing, but if you start to depend on them you very very quickly realize that your ability to solve more complex problems will atrophy. And then when you get to a difficult problem you now waste much more time trying to solve a problem that might have been simpler for past you.
It’s not a consumer decision. Women’s clothes are often created very cheaply. Adding pockets costs money. Therefore cheap (see slimmer clothes) are created without pockets, even if women would wear them with pockets. Your own explanation actually agrees with that by stating it’s tied to the looseness of the pants. You can’t get the look on baggy pants without actually putting the pockets there. If they could they would.
You’re right, it is basic economics. Just not in the way stated. Adding pockets costs money. Women’s clothes are often created incredibly cheaply. It has nothing to do with women not wanting pockets.
Ff shows punycode. The article is quite old.