jmcs

Lots of them are reporters and politicians that know fully well where Elon Musk's road leads to. If I wasn't stuck in the same society as them, I would even find it amusing how happily they are dancing on the way to the gallows.

The monster was basically also his son in a way, so he would also be Frankenstein.

It depends if someone bothers to sue them or not. In the EU court decisions until now point that profiling for advertising should be opt-in not opt-out but companies keep trying to find loopholes or at least hoping to not attract too much attention with their defaults.

I already listened to/read a few books by jumping between the audiobook and the actual book. An app that would make both match both so you can resume in any form you want would be nice.

The state has the power to prevent mergers, the problem is that courts have been captured and half of the time the governments are run by people that are perfectly fine with neo-feudalism.

For all the things the Soviet Union did wrong, education wasn't one of them.

The rabid duopolist that doesn't even allow users to install whatever apps they want on their devices? The one that doesn't even allow alternative browser engines? The one that outright refuses to use any and all open standards or to allow interoperability unless forced by governments? They might be one the worst companies in the world to do it.

By companies, do you mean one guy living buying cheap crap from Alibaba and reselling it on Amazon, using a fake company name?

Speculative profits should be heavily taxed, it doesn't matter if it's done by old money that runs the big corporation or by middle class people that are as morally bankrupt. Scalpers and oligarchs are just two strains of the same virus.

It's not that things aren't possible, it's that there's always more, and often better, options to pick from. Going back to medicine, it's like surgeons have to learn new techniques, but with the difference there there isn't anywhere near the same degree of specialization.

Ok, I'll try to explain the issue with that. Do I have the right to pay someone to kill you? No. Then there's already a limitation on my speech AND use of private property. How can we reconcile that with free speech? By thinking about why free speech or any human rights matters. I could go on a dissertation here, but I'll skip what is easy to find online anyway and jump to the conclusion: human rights are positive rights that are intended to protect human dignity (in the philosophical sense of the indivisible and equal worth of all human life), so it follows that free speech only applies to speech that doesn't go against that goal. If you don't do this exercise you end up with the Paradox of Tolerance and all human rights crumble like a house of cards.

The thing is that humans are doing something drastically different from the current generation of AIs. If you tell Dall-e to come up with something influenced by El-Greco Cezanne and Toulouse-Lautrec you always get a generic impressionist painting you don't get Picasso. The "AI"s we have are mapping and transformation tools with a random number generator attached. In a way they are more akin to a DJ remixing a music (which requires permission from the copyright owner) than a musician creating their own song.