I don't think the comment you are replying to is giving up leverage. It's simply pointing to the OP that what he seems to be upset is not the thing itself, which everyone does, but only that he knows about it or ignores others doing the same.
Overall, intent is quite hard to prove. You would need to access internal documents and communications that explicitly direct the military. That's probably not going to happen.
However, from what I have observed, Israeli government officials have often expresses that intent publicly, despite claiming otherwise at the UN.
Most of the reactions I am seeing on various social media are negative.
Granted, that is not the market that would buy a Ferrari, but one of the point of buying luxury cars is the status they grant. There is not much status in a car mocked by the public.
> There are enough people who would pay any money to have an electric Ferrari.
Are there? That's a pretty bold claim.
I'm sure they think the same at Ferrari, but plenty of successful companies create products that flop miserably based on the wrong assumptions.
I would personally think that the public interested in high-performance combustion-engine luxury cars is not interested in generic-looking electric cars even if they come from the same company.
I think that the problem arises because people equate things that are not the same.
One person learning something is good. At scale, that becomes everyone learning something. That's even better.
Machine learning is not scaling up people learning. It's completely different even if it's called "learning".
As the article argues, it's plagiarism at scale. In that sense, one person plagiarizing content is bad. Everyone plagiarizing at scale by using LLMs is even worse.
I don't understand the endgame here. Websites let Google crawl their content in exchange of traffic. If Google cuts that out completely, what incentive do websites have to not block the Google crawlers?
I understand that Google is feeling an existential threat from other AI products that provide answers directly. But they must also understand their symbiotic relationship with the web.
It does not matter what standing Musk has, the question is the important part, not the asker. You can accuse him of hipocrisy and that still makes no difference. He can still be the vehicle for the question to be asked.
The role of the government is to make the laws, and to apply them when violation are reported. It is also to regulate new situations as they arise, for example, if a court decides the law allows a non-profit to become a for-profit and that is deemed as not desirable, new laws can be passed to amend that.
It is the government roles, however, to going around to aks hypothetical questions before they are risen by someone, as there are too many possible hypotheticals, most never materialize, and that would be a conflict of interest. In that case Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided.
The Trump admin is not fond of enforcing regulations as the Biden admin was not fond of enforcing other regulations. That shows you can't expect the govenment to take that role since it's discretionary.
As I read around, this lawsuit raised an important question: can a non-profit become a for-profit company?
To that extent, what Musk was happy or unhappy with is irrelevant. What is actually allowed by the law is more important.
However, it seems that the lawsuit was not phrased that way and Musk just looked for damages to himself. In that frame it's not much of a surprise that things ended this way.
This is an idea I had in mind since I started developing for the Mac 20(!) years ago. I obviously never even got to create a prototype, so it's cool to see someone finally implement it.
> Natural selection will take care of them in due course.
While you are seemingly not at the moment, some day you might be at the receiving end of that "natural selection" in ways that seriously impact your remainint time on the planet.
In that case you might reconsider your stance, and especially question how natural is the selection of a few powerful rich people depriving others of their way to earn a living and their way to draw meaning from their lives.
The AI revolution keeps getting compared to the industrial revolution, but people keep forgetting the consequences of that one.
It is your opinion that it is a bad thing and that it affects all his other points. That's why you felt the need to cite those points. And you did the same in this comment, which is again an ad hominem.
> But thinking it is possible to store something safely for >10000 years is just wishful thinking.
> Imo it's stupid to put nuclear waste in a place where you can't get at it anymore.
Things obviously need to be weighed against each other. Burying it in a mountain does make it safe to store indefinitely, but obviously not easily accessible. It can be dug out again, however, if it becomes useful again. It's going to be more expensive, but you pay for the safety.
> As long as all goes well. Fukushima has a slightly different experience.
One of the articles I linked makes the argument that Fukushima is not as tragic as people think.
Quote:
> But now, eight years after Fukushima, the best-available science clearly shows that Caldicott’s estimate of the number of people killed by nuclear accidents was off by one million. Radiation from Chernobyl will kill, at most, 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile Island will kill zero people.
Email: [email protected]