That kinda depends on the level of taxation applied to the corporates and those who chose to supplement their UBI by doing some additional work for extra income, which would therefore be taxable. If you have enough revenue from taxation to cover everything else with a surplus, then UBI can be raised above "subsistence level" (which the minimum it would need to be if it's supplanting most current forms of welfare) to something a bit more comfortable. OP is probably right on the "not everyone" front though; if it happens, UBI is going to replace some current unemployment benefits outright, and there are plenty of examples of people who don't manage that income wisely, so we shouldn't expect that to change just because it is - from their perspective - just given a different name?

However, on the face of it, and given UBI experiments have shown recipients still tend to seek out and undertake some work, that would still tend to indicate most of the taxes necesary to fund it are going to have to come from corporates and investment income. In otherwords, reducing the incomes (in the form of bonuses and dividends) of exactly the kind of people who, as TFS demonstrates, are the least likely to want to pay those taxes just so others don't have to work, even thought they've probably never actually done a hard day's work in their life either. So, while I think UBI could absolutely work in principle, I suspect it's going to be a real mixed bag as to how well, and how comfortable the lives on it without supplementary income is likely to be. Where capitalism is king, like the US, UBI would never, ever, get above a level that doesn't even qualify as "subsistence", but I think it would definitely have a realistic chance in places like Scandinavia where they've long since accepted high taxes are a necessity for a higher overall standard of life, and - strange as it may seem - the Middle East where personal taxes tend to be near zero anyway.

The article seems to agree with the guy on slashdot.

> “I’m an optimist, in the sense that I think we will build a sustainable future,” Wagner says. “But it’s going to take 30 or 40 years, and by then, it’s going to be too late for a lot of the creatures that I love.

I guess I'm confused, how is a technology with a decades-long service life and is basically a capital investment subject to the same sort of label of 'bubble' compared to the explosive growth of something using a commodity model with obsolescence measured in years?

In 2020 I had to occasion to have some OS1 singlemode fiber installed back in 1994 terminated into splice cases and put into use. That fiber sat for basically a quarter century and was then usable when I needed it.

Where I work now I no longer have primary responsibility to deal with cabling infrastructure, but we still light up metro-crossing fiber between locations that could well have sat dormant for decades. Costs to install pathways right now are RIDICULOUS, like upwards of $1000/linear foot for underground conduit work. Stuff installed for a tenth or less that price 20 years ago is paying for itself now even accounting for inflation if I'm not having to spend $50k to go fifty feet between buildings. And unlike point-to-point wireless shots there's no recurring licensing fees to the FCC, there's no service-subscription costs to the wireless equipment manufacturer, and there's basically no lifecycle costs to regularly replace the connection.

If there was any sort of fiber bubble, it was that those looking to profit off of it weren't thinking like a utility, where the ROI takes awhile to see, but the investment in the installation lasts for decades, not months or years. It's only a bubble if you're not a long-term thinker.

This bit amazes me:

a consultant rushed to warn clients to be "extra careful" sharing sensitive data "with ChatGPT or through OpenAI's API for now," warning, "your outputs could eventually be read by others, even if you opted out of training data sharing or used 'temporary chat'!"

I mean, seriously? This is one of a whole bunch of companies that have been blatently hoovering up any data they can get their hands on without any regard to copyright, constraints placed via things like robots.txt, or thought to the hosting costs that can be incurred by continual spidering of vast amounts of website data, and you *honestly* thought you could trust them with the data you *chose* to provide them with or that it might not backfire like this?

Zuckerberg was right all along; "Dumb Fucks" indeed.

Well, like I said, appearance isn't the most important thing; in the movies, Herbie doesn't even always have his standard paint job. Sometimes he's (visually) just a plain VW bug. It's what he does, that's important.

So reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic?

sounds like the sham nonsense isn't limited to the school kids.

...and then there's this.

"This" is a cast iron example of why everyone involved in AI - the content producers, AI companies, VCs backing them, policitians, and users - need to deal with the elephant in the room; copyright law was not designed for the digital age, and certainly wasn't designed for the wholesale ingestation and regurgitation of AI engines. That the media companies, usually the first to cry "foul" and demand outrageous amounts of damages because copyright, are themselves playing fast and loose with other's content while complaining about their own being used as training data more than proves the point it's way past its sell by date.

While amended since, the Berne Convention dates from 1886. AI isn't a crisis for copyright; it's an opportunity to give it a thorough overall, make it fairer for all given it's now so easy to content shift and share data, and generally fit for purpose and fair for the 21st century and beyond. Fail to do so, and it's just a matter of time before the legal fallout (and damages) under the current system are going to give the lawyers on the winning sides of the inevitable disputes a whole new fleet of superyachts.

I could see that happening.

And to be fair, I don't hate USB-A like I used to, or frequently disconnected and reconnected cables/dongles/ports I like it. It's not as durable as I'd like, but it's physically big enough that if junk makes its way into the port or plug I can clean it out. If the outer housing ends up bent I can bend it back. I can put micro-SD card readers into the socket that are nearly flush with the socket itself.

USB-C is more fragile than USB-A, if something gets into the connector it'll probably damage it. I've seen this happen to phones, and to cables, I could see it happening to computers as well.

True, but when I've been on committees to help make decisions, I tend to play east-german judge, and sometimes this helps steer things away from techbros that don't actually know the tech part of their business and are basically overgrown salesmen who've risen too high in the corporate ladder.

My field is networking rather than software, and while every vendor is usually pushing some new hotness when they do their bring-the-customer-to-the-experience-center, I'm the skeptic asking what they're using for themselves. When Cisco, for example, was leaning hard into their Software-Defined Networking replacement for Trustsec using what they were calling at the time "security group tagging" to basically add tokens that all access-edge and forwarding switches and routers needed to pay heed to in order to enforce end to end security for traffic, I asked them what they were using for themselves. Turns out despite them pushing SDN and SDAccess they were still using Trustsec and the SD- features weren't even functional for an org our size, it couldn't handle the number of endpoints. It couldn't even handle half of the number of endpoints that we saw on a regular basis. And it required basically full vendor lock-in for all access switches, distribution switches, routers, and firewalls to truly work. If you adopted it you were stuck with them basically completely until the end.

I've heard horror stories from other orgs that implemented it too. DNA/Catalyst Center problems, ISE problems, problems when working with endpoints that are not part of the SD- zone, etc.

Or as artists call this, "Mixed Media."

So what exactly are these three Rs that you feel so strongly about?

Isn't a lot of the business use case intended to replace the armies of code-monkeys churning out mediocre code for commercial products? Wouldn't promoting AI in this sense be the org pushing to make itself obsolete? The previous story is literally, "Morgan Stanley Says Its AI Tool Processed 9 Million Lines of Legacy Code This Year And Saved 280,000 Developer Hours."

TFA is vague as hell about what they actually did here since there are any number of ways of interpreting "Take some legacy code, like COBOL or Fortran, and covert it into a human-readable specification". Given what Morgan Stanley does, I'd assume when they say "specification" that they actually mean it, so I'm hoping it's not just converting legacy code on a line-by-line basis and actually producing a usable specification for entire functions that defines the expected input and outputs and leaves it up to a human to figure out how to make that happen efficiently in the desired target language(s).

Either way, leaving it up to a human to interpret that and write the more modern code based function (perhaps also with the aid of AI) seems like a much more practical use of current AI engines than trusting the AI to do the whole thing and then spending even more time than it would have taken a human to do the whole thing from scratch figuring out where the AI got something wrong. COBOL is one thing because it's pretty easy to parse given a little time, but my hunch is the big (and probably overstated) time saving here is more likely to come at least in part from not having younger coders who have never come across it before having to get to grips with something more cryptic like Fortran, or even some early "heavily optimised with obscure coding tricks" C for that matter.

It also has some rather significant security implications if the company sold that it had sandboxed customer accounts where customer data was only supposed to be exposed to the customer or to an AI system, not to human beings.