The broad spectrum of promises (appealing to a range of utopist to wannabe despots) for AI can't be emphasized enough to keep to money-train rolling.

I mean another possible technology, fusion, has the potential to be as transformative as AI. with far more tangible affects.

But since it can't shapeshift from savior to world-ending, it is relegated to "nice if it happens, but...".

The drama concerning AI (on all sides) would be mostly amusing except for the economy wrecking amounts being thrown at it, and brings to mind with sufficient wealth accumulation; how is this different than a command economy?

Yeah, no.

Beyond the parental obligation arguments and regulating companies manipulating algorithms, you do have to question why so many places are choosing this particular approach to keeping kids safe. I mean it's not like kids can't access unregulated parts of the web and see far more heinous shit.

And much like other moral panics, I contend this has nothing to do with any concern for the yougins and everything to do with control. Any type of censorship regime always starts with those who can't vote against it as new justifications are found to remove even boarder categories of materials.

As far as the quality of the discourse, I've begun to suspect something more fundamental is at play- commercialization.

The early web didn't have vertically integrated billion dollar companies monopolizing most aspects of the web. Nor did it have influencers making multi-million dollar deals behind the scenes.

And that will be a much, much bigger problem to defang.

A goodish portion of medicine is applying an algorithm to a set of circumstance. A large potion of the critical thinking has already been done for you. You just need to isolate which algorithm applies when.

The very best doctors (from a very, very good doctor), are interlocutors, teasing out what isn't obvious from what the patient is presenting an piecing out a narrative of what makes sense.

The critical thinking is much after.

You'd be surprised.

Beyond the nuts and bolts of how to do a thing, there is a fair bit of nuance and institutional knowledge that goes into any job, that isn't apparent from a set of directives.

Sometimes it takes the form of best practices. Sometimes it is knowing what wheel to grease to get something done.

Individually, they may not amount to much, but in totality they make the difference between something running smoothly and pulling your hair out.

And even in the face of this context matters, which is why LLMs make such obvious errors like putting glue on pizza and Carl generally doesn't.

Fear or corruption?

This isn't some Manhattan style project, with great secrecy over methods, attracting the best and brightest.

It is a MASSIVE wealth transfer though, disregarding law and scrutiny, with some of the most dubious leading the charge.

I would rather that it was fear driving this as there would be more evaluation of how this will play out globally instead of an endless black hole to dump the nation's wealth.

Interesting idea. Not to mention the colonialization of resources that goes with war (to the victors...).

The new model seems to be investment in R&D (cough... AI, cough...) to increase efficiency (which also corresponded with America's manufacturing dominance), but that has taken a backseat to profit taking and hype.

And so we are back to the prospect of war.

Not to mention the whole driver fiasco complete with lawfare.

And now you come, hat in hand, asking for money?

Fuck you, you fucking fuck; fuck fuck.

Part of the zeitgeist. Self-congratulatory for every little thing. Used some childhood references for your artistic endeavor? New genre. Rephrased a tired trope as a meme? Biting cultural criticism.

Likes are the new participation trophy.

And now- bring a different distraction because you are finally sick of the dead internet? Analogue bags.

Much of the early web was an open invitation to create something cool with nary a thought as to how it was all going to be paid for.

Eventually money wins over cool, whether it be music, movies, or the web, and oh boy! in the past few hundred years have we gotten exceedingly adept at extracting every red cent from the punters.

Yes yes yes, the wonders of capitalism and all the wonders it has to lead the masses out of poverty.

But there are trade-offs, and commodification doesn't even begin to describe the hellscape of modern culture.

Somehow I imagine you are perfectly fine with corporations making political donations that may be contrary to their shareholders' or workers' politics.

Criticizing one without the other ("but money is speech unless a union does it") is just the mark of a sycophant.

We've heard it before.

You're not getting it.

Can't speak for Texas but I caught an interview with the sponsor of the porn bill in Kentucky, and he made clear one of the effects he was after was to drive such content from the state.

PornHub has proposed methods to verify age that are less onerous (tying age to a device, verified at point of sell), but they have been shot down as not being stringent enough (as if sending a copy of an ID isn't easy enough to spoof).

This isn't about "for the children" inasmuch as soft banning certain types of content.

It's the same playbook from decades ago with the same arguments.

You can point to harmful mutations being a significant cause of death.

From my vantage point, there is a gauntlet of trials males have to go through just to breed let alone survive long enough where disease has a significant impact.

Certainly having a copy of DNA is an advantage long-term, but males often die well before that.

So basically the same as stickering albums from days past, with the same motivations- do-gooderism with unintended consequences.

And can we finally admit that much like music before, this was never intended to serve the public but stroke the egos of the pearl clutching class?

And can we further admit the same of locking down the web, for the children, may have noble intentions, but the methods are completely counter-productive?

Nope. I guess another generation has to suffer through this idiocy.

And then there is this idiocy, again.

The raison d'être of public sector unions is they have far, far fewer available recourses for violations of the the law by government. Any type of whistleblower protections amount to naught unless there is actual teeth to enforce them. Unions may be an imperfect vehicle here, but no one has suggested another means to cajole government to follow the damn law, and public sector unions have proven time and time again to be the first line of defense against certain types of corruption.

My take on unions is by the time employees are pissed enough to overcome the inertia to form one, the business is already in decline and the damage is done. There is typically a fair amount of abuse that proceeded the formation of a union, so employers only have themselves to blame.

And after that, you can anticipate a fair amount of antagonization by way of the union for past abuses. There is some power for power's sake to be sure, but the difference between a destructive and approachable union is management.

Get out if can, otherwise there will be antagonism on both sides.