Everyone pushing tools/AI during initial development/investment and building its demand in the cultural discourse always highlights its ability for good.
Now, like many tools, the majority of those selling AI to make money off of large enterprise sell its ability to increase productivity, efficiency, compliance. Either to make money or to minimise risk. And so like you say, they just become tools to make these metrics move or report them at higher granularity. And often there is either a lack of imagination or a willful ignorance of the perverse outcomes with relationship to humans because they are in service of the organisation not it's employees.
I agree with everything you said about their situation, but it's not like that is what will be evaluated in an IPO. There will be continued hype by the companies, lobbying to win support of a corrupt administration, and a narrative spin by clueless media about this AI revolution that will give investors fomo.
That's half my point. Because what you said might be true, and yet, the argument by Capital is often that they are working HARDER THAN EVERYONE else to get their wealth and everyone else is lazy. Which is a) both irrelevant as you state, and b) a sign they need the validation that they are putting in effort / more effort to justify what they are extracting from everyone else.
Yes their are. Majority of elected officials are just their instrument. The amount of money billionaires spend shaping media, lobbying and campaigns to get power and push propaganda to determine who is elected makes the fight to get people like AOC who are working in the interest of society so much harder.
A lot of comments seem to not assume that ownership is equivalent to 'earning'. Why does capital need to pretend their wealth growth is equivalent to the effort of labour.
It's typically the name for the front of computer programming that is 'doing human type stuff'. Once it's not on the front and the wave has passed, the AI name moves on.
This is great when everyone is smart, aligned in the purpose, has no politics, dog in the fight, but awful everywhere else.
It's the difference between peer review by leaders in the field trying to make your paper better, and juniors wanting to be heard or insecure academics trying to get an ego boost by nit picking and wasting time.
Intellectual bloodbath sounds like so much of the latter with point scoring being the goal.
I use jellyfin server on my NAS with wireguard + symfonium (android client) on my phone for streaming, but I mostly stream out of the house on my phone.
I have multiple syncthings between phone and home nas:
- Photos (immich on server/mobile). I use master on phone, so immich don't delete on phone, and then rotate my folders out of syncthing directory and then clean my on device camera photo every few months
- Notes: (Obsidian on server/mobile). flawless
- SyncFolder: random folder to move between the two.
It's more frustrating because my partner's pixel 4A cannot use google pay or the bank apps because it is an invalid os - I am guessing due to lack of updates? So, perfectly fine hardware, but crippled in functionality due to the lack of software updates.
I tried to opposite because claude was not coding as well as codex some additional modules for my codebase and codex could. Then I tried to get claude to read and critique and it got so many fundamentals wrong I was wondering if I am using the wrong model.
github copilot?
bing copilot?
office365 copilot?
office365 copilot chat?
windows copilot?
or one of those clippy like copilots in dev environments that can't do anything but point you to the wrong documentation?
Now, like many tools, the majority of those selling AI to make money off of large enterprise sell its ability to increase productivity, efficiency, compliance. Either to make money or to minimise risk. And so like you say, they just become tools to make these metrics move or report them at higher granularity. And often there is either a lack of imagination or a willful ignorance of the perverse outcomes with relationship to humans because they are in service of the organisation not it's employees.