So far, lab grown meat hasn't done particularly well in terms of flavor, so it's hard to say what is ideal outside of an actual chicken.

Actually the interesting thing about that propaganda is nobody actually sells any meat like that. Antibiotics also aren't cheap and aren't used unnecessarily, rather, they're only used in the event that the animal is sick, and only slaughter it after there's no more indication of infection or antibiotics.

The "antibiotic free" meat comes in one of two varieties: Either it's done the way it has been done in the history of modern medicine, or the rancher doesn't treat sick animals with antibiotics at all, generally opting for increased suffering in order to satisfy the desires of people like you.

Yeah that's false too. The "pink slime" is one part of the chicken, not the whole chicken, that used to go to waste because it's tough to chew. But after a bit of preparation, that changes things. We've done this a lot in the past, take brisket for example, an otherwise tough cut of meat which now goes for a premium after it's been prepared. But given you're obviously a soyboy, I don't expect you to be familiar with any of that.

But after people like you raised a shit, now McDonald's wastes it again, even though other restaurants don't, all because you didn't like the way it looks before it is cooked. Meanwhile a lot of you insist on only eating food grown in cow shit as opposed to nitrates created with the Haber method, because natural is better or something, and shit is natural.

Same as gambling.

I once stumbled across a matched-betting forum with a huge and popular thread about a guy who was basically doing matched-betting all day long.

Scoured the Internet for deals, signed up with every gambling provider, read all their T&Cs, managed dozens of accounts, spent their day looking for a pair of conflicting bets that offered a tiny odds advantage (i.e. they would likely win slightly more than they would lose by betting against themselves at the same time), etc. etc.

It looked really attractive if you weren't a mathematician or logical person because when you looked at what he was doing... he was working stupid hours a day, in a horrible and dull job (because most of what he did could not be automated, gambling companies don't like you scraping their websites, etc.), constantly, where even if you did everything right you could still technically lose, where the T&Cs often meant you could fall foul of certain situations, and where the wins were often small and fleeting and where one mistake could cost you far more money than you'd win.

I mean, sure... "guaranteed" profit in one sense. But what you have at that point is a job being a professional gambler. It looked like he made money because of the occcasional big win, but he needed to put large stakes down constantly to make that and continue to make that.

I never followed what happened, it's really not my cup of tea, but I can't imagine it would be something you'd want to do for decades on end as a career, or even be that profitable. If you have the dedication to do that, or even the skill to automate that, you can make far more money for far less risk elsewhere.

Doing it for a retirement fund? I hope they do it well and there isn't, say, a global economic crisis, war, etc. that wipes out all their gains in one fell swoop. Even something like Bitcoin collapse, AI bubble burst, etc. would severely impact those things because both would cause significant number of billions to disappear and people would be looking to recoup those losses.

You joke, but if the AI was actually AI... you would be able to do that.

The AI should be the revenue generator, directly. You shouldn't need to snakeoil it into human hands as something to boost their existing revenue if you pay for it.

If the AI was even vaguely intelligent, it could be let loose on the Internet and generate income directly - legitimately or not! - for its creators. Instead you have to entice users to come to you to use it.

We know AI isn't intelligent because if it were... companies would just be running AI quietly and the money would be rolling in directly from its use of other things - e.g. stock trading, or creative work (including setting up a company/website, answering email, advertising, getting customers, producing the work, customer service etc.) and nobody would be telling you it was AI and nobody would be admitting to owning those services.

AI-as-a-service to others would be nonsense. Why would you bother? Just put the AI to work directly, on its own, and let it make money for you while you do nothing.

Fact is, it's not intelligent and you'd make a humungous loss (like OpenAI) trying to do that.

I keep saying it:

When AI investors want to see their return, and those companies are forced to charge even cost-price for their services... and your ChatGPT subscription goes up by an order of magnitude... people will start to realise that it's really not worth several Netflix subscriptions every month for something to Google the answer you're after and then present it in the form of a limerick.

We're in the sunk-costs, loss-leader phase right now... and OpenAI don't even have a single profitable tier of their services. And they have a century or more of running costs from investment that was just given to them. And one day someone's going to want that back. And they don't really have a business model beyond "charge a few dollars and let users throw a query at this thing we built".

The reason AI is rounded upon for datacentre use, GPU shortages, sucking up power and water in unprecendented amounts, etc. etc. is real. And at the moment it's still not profitable. When those costs are actually translated back to the customer - it's one of the LEAST EFFICIENT ways to get anything done on a computer. At the moment you're just using countless resources to do this stuff, almost for free.

Like Google in the early days... OpenAI is going to have to find a revenue model because offering everyone a clever search engine for free isn't profitable. Google are basically an ad-space seller far more than a search engine. I can't see that OpenAI could go the same way and reasonably compete, because their operational costs must be enormous.

AI is going to be killed not by humans pulling the panic cord, or by stronger AIs that take longer to train, but by the electricity bill and a lack of customers willing to pay it to open one of their 50-100 documents that they can search for locally if they need to, and a spellcheck that doesn't need to be all that "clever".

Quite.

One of the best explanations I found was that we trained these statistical models to produce something that is convincingly like an answer to the question posed.

So when it makes up references and names and lawsuits and properties and programming keywords that don't exist, that at first look plausible but under scrutiny don't hold up... that's to be expected. It's doing exactly what it's designed to do. It made something LIKE an answer to the question posed.

Which, if anything, is even more dangerous than just not knowing - in the fields of medicine, mathematics (especially rigorous but extraordinarily difficult to realise when someone has made a minor but forgiveable mistake), etc. - because the output is, although nonsense, plausible nonsense for the most part. Which is often harder to spot than outright nonsense.

You know how you know that I'm qualified and you're not? Because when I troll you, I do it in plain sight. You don't because you already know that what I'm saying is too easy to prove.

Well, you are in fact othering unnamed people and feeding hate against them. More than half of the people living in the United States are among the top 1% of global incomes, both in absolute terms and in terms of disposable income, which I guess qualifies half of this country as ultra-rich, but who has the authority to set that arbitrary goalpost? Last I checked, I haven't been fighting with anybody else, and nobody has been fighting with me. Nevertheless, you're apparently coveting my income, which makes you the greedy one. All I'm doing is working to earn my salary, and the only reason that pisses you off is that you don't get to stick your hands into it.

Anyway, so how does this fight work? Are you trying to piss rich people off by spitting gum on the sidewalk so they might step in it? Do tell.

They're under no such obligation to the general public, only to their stakeholders, and only to the extent that it is legally relevant to each. However, and this is the important part that you're all too familiar with, without being mindful of: Anything they do or say may be used against them in a court of law.

Apple tried the civil equivalent of that and it blew up in their faces. Club fed should probably hire epic's legal team to do the prosecution's job here

Pig as in porcine, not rsilvergun. Besides, human kidneys only come with a 90 day warranty. If you lose your graft after 90 days, you start over on the wait list. I'd wager porcine kidneys carry no such limitation.

I'm sure that vibe coding is real and that it works, but nobody ever said the code will do what you think it does. The best thing it could do is crash and burn, and I'm pretty sure vibe coders can figure out fixes for it...provided they do more vibe coding. The second best thing it could do is fail in a really obvious way without actually crashing. And again, more vibe coding to the rescue.

But what happens when it fails in very subtle ways? Particularly on unknown edge cases. That's where fluffernutter or angleosphere confidently produce shitty code.

For what it's worth, my own experiences match your groups 1 and 2. Though I'm self-taught with no CS background whatsoever. The guy in my signature claims to be, and so does this guy:

https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/comments....

You gotta love the way he asserts that he will code four times as fast, and how he relies on his programs to crash and burn when he makes a mistake, but then proceeds to talk about how his potential semantic error is superior because it involves typing a whole four less characters. And that's with him having a lot more experience with the language than me, which also strongly hints that he never learns from his mistakes.

I have found uses for AI in just two areas though: Assisting in reverse engineering code output as they tend to be able to spot patterns in ways I occasionally overlook, and converting documentation into usable data structures. And that to me makes them basically just the next evolution of the search engine, or possibly an (un)paid intern that you really need to supervise but they otherwise give you more time to focus on bigger stuff as opposed to minutia.

And my first job where I got paid money to write software was in infosec, where having autistic paranoia against doing the wrong thing pays off.

Not really. In many respects they're far more market driven than the US is, though I mostly pay attention to Sweden, who I *know* is more market driven, even using a school voucher system to a remarkably great effect. Aside from the obvious things like local utilities being occasionally government owned means of production, they're mostly private sector with a welfare component added in to government fund it. There's a very big distinction between that and socialism.

Also, people commonly confuse their economy with being that of a maximalist welfare state. In reality, if there were such a thing, that would definitely be France, who spends the most of their GDP on welfare than any other country. The US is actually right on the heels of the Nordic states in that respect, and does in fact have a much more expansive welfare system than most countries, though it's far removed from the top as well. It's also worth noting that our GDP is higher than all of Europe's despite having half of the population, so on a per-capita basis we may even be spending more than some of the Nordic states.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fourworldindata.org%2Fgra...

It's difficult to make an apples to apples comparison, given the needed data isn't available in most cases. Nevertheless, a lot of the "socialism is better even though I have no fucking idea what it means" camp get this incredibly wrong as well. As France well demonstrates, being a welfare state is very far removed from being a guarantee of happiness.

https://worldpopulationreview....

It really depends, though at worst that ends up either being a wash, or, more likely, you get more income that more than makes up for it. If you're like me, where your employer pays 100% of the premium cost, then you get both. I can't say I've ever worked for a company that gave only two weeks of vacation a year. My previous job was 5 weeks, would have been 6 weeks if I was there a few years longer, but only 6 holidays. My current job is 3 weeks plus 11 holidays, two of which (4th of July and thanksgiving) are always four-day weekends.

As for me? No fucking way I'd live in NYC. Every time I see youtube videos of people talking about how great it is, I'm thinking to myself "meh...I get that everything is within walking distance and all, but a total absence of nature isn't my thing, nor am I interested in waiting in long ass lines for basically everything, and that's before we even consider the rodent problem (which is a symptom of all their natural predators having been driven out) or the pickpockets.

I didn't say anything at all about imports. I already know they allow that, particularly because they import ours. If you dig through my post history (as many here often do in order to try to discredit me) you'd find that I've even commented about this before. In fact, I've been somewhat an activist on this topic for a very long time. This post even got accepted waaaaay back:

https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/firehose....

I don't know where the accepted version is, but the reason I linked that in particular is that I've made very few submissions at all, so it shows up right there in my user page. Anyway, if you feel like discrediting me, go for it.

Well, you might want to read your sources more before linking them.

So this article was from 2015, and not only did it make a few predictions that now read like a prophecy, they even noted big losses in the biotech sector that happened even back then, like BASF moving its biosciences division out of Europe and into the US where it could continue its R&D all the way back in 2012:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20...

The future seems dim as well:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fallianceforscience.org...

It seems they've been fighting this for some time, so the article I linked about Europe peeling back the NGT regulation is probably premature, so they may not even be doing that any time soon as this has been a contentious issue for it seems two decades now. So actually, rather than going easy on that claim like I was before, I'm going to double-down on it.

You might consider keeping your ear to the ground:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fbiote...

Needless to say, overregulation causes a lot of harm (which several posts there allude to impacting them on an individual level) not just there, but even another topic seemingly unrelated to biotech:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.labiotech.eu%2Ftrend...

While I'm not at all an expert on gene editing, I can say the one good use I've gotten out of AI is its excellent ability to spot patterns in very large datasets. It's pretty useful for my field, where I do a fair bit of reverse engineering. Indeed, the more I look into this, the more Europe seems to be kicking its own butt.

Anyway, you know what one of the dumbest rallying cry towards this cause is, and I hear it often in these discussions? "Europe banned it, so you know it's bad!" Shit, there's no shortage of Europeans who have been talking about how awesome they are for banning it, even on this site. And no, I'm not going to link any of those posts because slashdot is one of the most unsearchable sites on the internet and I didn't bookmark any of it.

I haven't seen much if any slow-down as I age, and I'm 60. What I have seen is that I spend more time thinking so I write less code to get the same result and need to do less debugging to get it working correctly. I also have a bigger library of code I can use without having to write it all from scratch so again I end up writing less code. This last is especially true for tests, and I already know the corner cases and odd cases out that many of my co-workers don't even realize need tested. But the correct measurement isn't "How much code do you write and how quickly?" but "How much time and effort does it take for you to get the functionality production-ready?". There I (and my managers) can see a clear difference between those who do it fast vs. right.