Greenskye

Most likely the entire HBO streaming service wouldn't have taken off, because they offered little to no avenues to consume their content to an increasingly no-cable subscription generation. It's entirely likely that HBO would've died out along with traditional TV.

Yep. This is totally good enough to outsource PR speak to AI. ChatGPT has this down pat.

I think it's totally possible to design a system where you can alter course, without it turning into 'respec mid boss battle meta'. I disagree with OPs strategy, but I did wish I had an easier time switching things up after 50+ levels. I felt completely stifled and unable to experiment with any new gear drops because that would mean a huge investment just to see if I liked something else better. For me, that means I'll probably eventually lose interest. Finding out I don't like a spec means I'll just leave and go to something else.

My wife watches a lot of YouTube and has several favorites. She's subscribed to none of them. Apparently lots of people do this and completely ignore the subscription feature.

I don't disagree, so long as we're talking about similar distances from center when we say 'far'. At least in the US, people talk about the far right and the far left, except they're really talking about people who are slightly left. US doesn't have far left. Far left is the USSR and other authoritarian communist states (I'm unsure if any of these still exist).

Though honestly I think it just makes more sense to push back against anyone who's too far on the authoritarian scale as I feel like that's mostly what people have a problem. Governments (in my opinion) need to be at least a bit authoritarian in order to enforce laws at all, but a lot of the modern political sphere is pushing hard on overly authoritarian policies in nearly every space and country.

Wrong spectrum. Both Republicans and Tankies are authoritarian, which is why they feel similar (especially because current republicans are barely even conservative and have mostly gone all in on the authoritarian part).

Also we've been automating or otherwise machine-assisting hard labor for centuries now. There are tons of 'hard labor' jobs that used to exist and now are merely someone pressing buttons in an air conditioned cab. The number of people needed for construction, farming, etc continues to fall as we approach full automation

Still wouldn't pay for it.

Just since I've setup a plex server (about 8 years now) midrange sizes have gone from 4->16 TBs. Personally I think the bulk of the issue is that HDD customers switched from a mix of enterprise and personal, to nearly all enterprise. Companies really don't care if a HDD is $200 or $500, so basically all high capacity drives are priced at B2B prices, not consumer

Same kinda logic as people who complain about ads saying that they'd rather pay for the service, instead of ads. The reality is only about 1% ever do pay. I assume it's similar for clothing, where most people naturally gravitate towards the clothes that look 'best', even if they don't have pockets.

My personal stance is to use Lemmy for everyday browsing and scrolling, but if google searching for something like product reviews, tech support etc end up taking me to reddit, then that's ok. I don't agree with Twitter either, but sometimes you get linked to a tweet or something. Reddit is now for incidental, research purposes only. Going from a everyday reddit user to 'only when google takes me there' user is still quite the downgrade in my eyes and I feel like I'm not really supporting them anymore and no longer a 'customer' of theirs.

Struggling to sort out my thoughts on this one.

I'm not really sure comparing AI to a human artist learning and being inspired by others quite fits. At least in the context of a commercial AI (one that a company charges others to use). It feels scummy for a company (for profit entity) to steal training data from others without consent, and then turn around and charge people for the product they built on that stolen content.

That said, existing copyright law allows for 'fair use', which includes educational purposes. In that light, AI companies could be seen as a sort of AI school program. But the icky part to me, is that AI is not a person. It can't choose to leave the school. That school can then profit off that student forever and ever.

I feel like the fair use argument for education applies to humans, not AI (at least not till they actually gain sapience). AI are machines that can be leveraged and exploited by the few and powerful, and that power should come without us subsidizing their development.

Though honestly it's sort of a moot point, because it's already done and we're very unlikely to ever properly charge them now. And now that they have the start, they have a leg up on everyone else. So the morality of how it was built no longer really matters, unless we want to argue AI should all be open source or public domain.