Yep - this is the same BS marketing campaign the Chevron tried to (succeeded actually) pull of in the early 2000's WRT global warming. There's was energy. The campaigns were like "I will take the bus to work" or "I will use my hair drier less".
It's a deflection campaign - focusing consumer attention on a thing that is true (that won't cost them money) to divert attention from another thing that is true (that will cost them money and is their fault).
Both are true - and if they want to exploit a commons (the environment, the electrical grid), then they should pay for that exploit.
"...[the prediction that AI will continue to grow] will be proven wrong because everybody hates it."
I have no love for Zuckerberg or Lucky or Musk or any of those gadooshbags, but I don't hate generative AI. It's a useful tool and I've been using it consistently every day for well over a year. I'm part of "everybody", so that's at least one counterexample.
And although it's a bit ripped out of the context, which is as follows:
> It will be proven wrong because everybody hates it. A decade ago, people saw that photo of Zuckerberg, waltzing past the masked men at MWC and shuddered. "That's dystopian," almost everyone muttered. "That's dystopian," many of us are still saying, but now even more loudly, more fervently. A recent survey by NBC News found Americans rank the favorability of "AI" below every major politician in the country, below ICE.
I think that's either unluckily mistaken wording or simply a bad-faith overstatement. "Everybody hates tech" - if this is about "big tech giants", then although it's not true (because it's not really everybody who hates them, especially if you will ask usual people), but it's closer to the truth. But the original stance - "Everybody hates tech" - in my humble opinion, even regarding the context, reads rather like "Everybody hates technology as a whole" which is simply false.
And, to be honest, in me personally the whole article is provoking some kind of... uncanny feeling. I can't tell if it was generated by AI or something like that, but it just feels unnatural and... strange. Sorry, I don't even know how to express this clearly...
You would think even the lowest paid employees performing routine labor at the company would be pulling in multiple 6-figure salaries. I wonder if that's the case?
> You would think even the lowest paid employees performing routine labor at the company would be pulling in multiple 6-figure salaries.
Why would you think that? Because of Musk's reputation for magnificence and generosity? Because rich gigantic companies don't care about keeping operating costs low? Or because janitors at SpaceX require special skills that can only be obtained by paying many multiples of the market rates for standard janitors?
This article doesn't address the title question for me. It starts off by implying some insight into whether or not our consciousness persists or simply dissolves into nothingness, but concludes with the same old trope about our bodies matter and energy being recycled into the universe. Our matter and energy are not our consciousness, the arrangement of our matter and energy is most likely our consciousness.
"I" was perfectly fine before I was born, and therefore I'm very certain "I" will be perfectly fine after I die. That's comforting to me when I periodically have an existential crisis.
Why are the after pictures modifying attributes that are not part of the cosmetic adjustment? For instance, in the 'after' images skin tones are more "tan" (less pale), eye shadow is more intense, in one scene the woman is smiling vs not. All of these subtle cues make it artificially look like the cosmetic adjustment is "better" - just like all of those junk weight loss, age reversal, and muscle building before/after ads.
I actually see the value in your idea, but it looks like it still needs work to be trustworthy.
Personally, I would only trust it after seeing several 'ground truth comparisons of predicted results compared to the actual photos of people who had the procedure done.
How do I know this entire thing isn't AI generated?
Why can't we just have a third party vetting service for true content, where the content is labeled with a serial number and URL, and I can just look it up on the third party service's site to confirm it's validity (and if the content has no serial number watermarked on it, then I just ignore it as false)???
To check on the basic facts you could have a look at the "related articles" in the YT video description. There you'll find an item from Bellingcat, a fairly well respected source. They state:
This joint investigation by Bellingcat, Der Spiegel, The Insider and La Repubblica, was conducted over the course of 10 months.
If don't trust Bellingcat and you want to dig further you contact Der Spiegel, et al, to see if they know anything about this. And follow up any other sources they mention. Of course, where do you stop? The more sources you check the harder it is to claim that each source is part of a wider conspiracy, but it's hard work. Given the track record of Bellingcat I'm inclined to believe they know what they are doing, but that's just my personal level of paranoia. YMMV.
> third party vetting service
You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer.
...Yeah, for the 10's of articles I actually read in a day (at least with cobcern about their validity) that amount of homework would probably blow up my screen time by 5X, and result in my divorce.
"You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer."
Agreed. If there were a simple 3rd party vetting service that currenlty trusted purveyor's of news used religiously, that in and of itself would allow me to trust said third party validator for other, perhaps non-mainstrem channels, and not trust thos who didn't use the 3rd party validator.
I'm just saying - there's a high demand for trust. One could argue that the currency of the forseable future is indeed "trust".
Trust is highly subjective. A lot of people trust certain "flagship" sources like The Times (UK), NY Times, BBC, RussiaToday, Aljazeera, Reuters, etc, but they can have wildly different viewpoints on a particular point of news, yet they are all "trusted" by large numbers of people.
I understand that you want there to be a single source of news/opinion that everyone agrees is trustable, and that would be desirable, but in this era and any foreseeable future that's like wanting world peace: very desirable but ultimately unachievable for a myriad of reasons.
reply