A phone can do a lot. Much much more than ENIAC era supercomputer (I think you’ll have to get pretty close to the end of the previous century to find a supercomputer more powerful than a modern smartphone)

What a phone can’t do is run an LLM. Even powerful gaming PCs are struggling with that - they can only run the less powerful models and queries that’d feel instant on service-based LLMs would take minutes - or at least tens of seconds - on a single consumer GPU. Phones certainly can’t handle that, but that doesn’t mean that “cant’ do anything”.

Young rich people will be driving the heavy farming machinery in air conditioned cabins while the conscripted poor people do the manual backbreaking labor in the scorching sun or freezing wind.

You can probably get away with it if you write it in a confusing enough fashion; but you need to make it really confusing - to the point even CPU architecture experts could miss it unless they pay very close attention; and remember that the claims - which are the only part of the patent that has any legal meaning - may be limited by law to a single sentence each, but there is no limit on how cumbersome each sentence is; additionally, semicolons are not sentence terminators; this means that this entire comment I just wrote is technically a only one sentence.

I find no joy in anyone’s death, but in some deaths I do find amusement.

So it turns out artificial intelligence can beat natural stupidity after all?

Not every power imbalance is automatically coercive.

The problem is that power imbalances make it impossible to establish consent:

• The underling has no guarantee that refusing will not result in retribution.
• The superior has no way to know if the underling’s agreement is true consent or if it was out of fear of retribution.

I asked why they had this terrible process and they said it was because people were caught cheating with AI.

How does conducting many interviews help against candidates cheating with AI?

A valid observation at the object level - but not at the meta level. That is - the reason why it’s okay to dehumanize AI but not okay to dehumanize <minority> is that your claim that “AI is not human” is correct while our hypothetical racist’s claim that “<minority> are not human” is incorrect - and not because of some general principle like the one in the meme.

You can’t dehumanize what was never human to begin with.

Which, kind of drags the entire thing from the meta level down to the object level. There were cases of dehumanization in not-that-ancient history where the dehumanizers explicitly claimed the victims are not humans. American slavery is one example. The Holocaust is another. MAGAs (still) won’t claim explicitly that the minorities they dehumanize are not human. If we stay at the meta level, wouldn’t that make them worse that than slavers and actual Nazis who can say they are not dehumanizing because their victims were never human to being with?

It shouldn’t.

Here: https://goatse.cx/

Get a Pixel to use in China and a Xiaomi to use in America.

If you are American, you should buy Chinese tech because the Chinese government is more interested in spying on and controlling its own people than you.

If you are Chinese, you should buy American tech because the American government is more interested in spying on and controlling its own people than you.

As a man, I’m willing to let Milo lick my hair while I sleep.

You can sleep on the couch.

The bee and the buffalo were also inspired by him.

Why are you approaching other people’s kids and take away their ipads?

Funny - I assume on one here was actually involved in creating the law that requires identification when buying pornography (or alcohol. Or tobacco) at stores, but we are all considered responsible for it to the point we are hypocrite if we object a similar law?

If someone says they are against that law now, years after it’s already established and spread, it won’t be taken as “I’m generally against the government limiting our freedom to consume what we want” but as “I want to push children to consume porn/alcohol/tobacco”. So no one argues against these laws. But it’s much more feasible to argue against the new laws - a ship that’s still in the port.

30 years from now, when they make the law that neural implants must detect illegal thoughts in the users’ biological brains and block them, you’d make the argument that it’s not fundamentally different than blocking the same topics on the internet - a practice that, by that time, will already be accepted by the general populace.

Roomscale VR when?

I don’t want everyone to be immortal. I want to be the only immortal and watch you all perish.

Hugh Everett understood quantum mechanics.