The entire reason gold was used as a currency is that it didn't have any intristic value. It was a shiny rock with no use* outside of decoration, which made it a convenient way to store wealth. *Yes, I'm aware that now we have uses for it as a commodity. That doesn't really apply to the days when people still took the gold standard seriously.
If nothing else it warrants some pretty significant scrutiny about his claims. I'll willing to accept that you did just that, but you probably should have expected at least one angry response given the guy's past arguments.
This is why people worry about AI taking jobs. It's not about fear of the AI doing it better, it's a matter of the executive class being too busy doing lines of cocaine off each other's dicks to understand what the technology is (and more importantly, isn't) capable of.
look I can do Random capitalization Of words too
allowing centrists to learn that word was a mistake
This is the same sort of thing I see from people convinced that Elon's constant fuckups and destruction of everything people liked (or at least begrudgingly tolerated) about Twitter is actually a twelve-dimensional hyperchess plan handed down by order of the Saudis. It's the same mistake Elon's stans make. Dude's just not that smart.
*cry
Merits of the legal threats aside, I'm not going to try too loudly over the loss of What If Cinemasins But Books.
Exactly. People (Mike included, apparently) keep acting like everything Elon does is part of some master plan, but it's not. There was never a plan. There was only a monument to the failure of meritocracy, a man surrounded by people who worked to stop him from carrying out his most destructive whims until the illusion of competence had become so absolute that he could convince even them that their work was unneeded.
Then maybe you should ask those artists what they think about stuff like Midjourney? (Spoiler alert: they're not exactly huge fans.)
Wouldn't be surprised one bit to learn that their lobbying influenced at least one mass shooting given the shit you tend to hear from the NRA, but I'll accept that proving sufficient influence to result in liability would be difficult at best.
For someone who writes legal analysis, you seem grossly ignorant of rulings like DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services and Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
It’s highly likely that this will not survive an appeal.If we lived in a nation where judges DIDN'T regularly get nominated for the sole purpose of pushing whatever bullshit the Republicans have decided to glom onto this week, perhaps.
Given how hard it is for its biggest defenders to define, or even show basic comprehension of, I also doubt Congress will do much better.
Eh, I've seen people literally calling it a death threat.
You're asking me to believe that a US government intelligence op would actually do stuff that would make right-wingers look bad? I mean, maybe, but it doesn't exactly have a lot of modern precedent.
Is this something "AI" would even be capable of? It feels like the same overhyping of a technology that's increasingly harder to find moral use cases for, just in a different direction than most of the MBA dropouts are pushing it.
You can test stuff like "do we have a block feature at all" without inviting the general public to sign up for your website, dumbass.
What part of "if blocking is 'a feature that has yet to be implemented', you shouldn't have a user base yet" do YOU not understand?
Thank you for finding a new medium to reenact the pancakes/waffles tweet.