Carnegie chose to do good things with his money, as did Gates and Boros. Now, it’s easy to criticize all three of them for an arbitrary number of bad things they are responsible for. Which is entirely beside the point:

There is obviously a scale of good and bad things oligarchs decide to do with their money. Musk, Thiel, Sachs and the likes are on the “huge asshole” end of that scale. And other oligarchs are not. Assuming Gates was as bad as Musk because somereason fails to see this and ultimately leads to letting the true assholes off the hook.

They’re clearly not all on the same team. Some are decent human beings that choose to use their money for the betterment of humankind.

It’s just that a couple, e.g. Musk, Thiel, David Sachs and others, decided to be huge assholes. They would end democracy any day to become richer and more powerful.

Also, no novelty - strong reject, no revision possible 🙂‍↔️

While I agree with most points you make, I cannot see a machine that is, at a bare minimum, able to translate between arbitrary languages become irrelevant anytime in the foreseeable future.

Heh, I think you have a point. Funny this gets downvoted though.

I think they mean economic liberalism, not political liberalism, which is what you explain.

The placement of „Skis“ in this will trigger every Scandinavian I know. Should definitely be in the top left.

Sad how this comment gets downvoted, despite making a reasonable argument.

This comment section appears deeply partisan: If you say something along the lines of “Boo Google, AI is bad”, you get upvotes. And if you do not, you find yourself in the other camp. Which gets downvoted.

The actual quality of the comment, like this one, which states a clever observation, doesn’t seem to matter.

I dislike the entire article. Of course google search still works just fine. Claiming otherwise is only possible by magnifying a small, admittedly disfunctioning part of google search.

lol nice rage farming 10/10.

I disagree. If you need to keep your coworkers in front of a webcam for half a day to make sure they work, then I think your workplace’s culture is messed up and you’re part of an unhealthy dynamic. I believe supervision is something different.

If people don’t work when you’re not around, then I’m afraid your workplace has a bad culture. And chances are you are part of a dynamic that makes others not work when you’re not there, even though that’s not your intention.

Check the literature on “employee empowerment “, here’s a link to get started: https://hbr.org/2023/03/5-strategies-to-empower-employees-to-make-decisions

I… kinda like lemmy the way it is I guess? Sure, I wish some niche-communities were a bit more active (looking at you, /c/malefashionadvice). But then again on Lemmy I actually feel motivated to contribute actively. Because I know my content won’t be monetized by some corporate behemoth. So maybe this is just fine the way it is?

While agree that Gemini does a terrible job on this task, the model that generates the images (text-to-image) is entirely different from the model that incorrectly answers the comparison between Musk and Hitler (text-to-text). All they share is the same product name (Gemini) and the same company that developed them. Probably entirely different teams built these two models.

Well spoken, I mostly agree. Although I wouldn’t go so far and say that shutting down Gmail would kill Google - their search is still pretty popular, too. Their horizontal integration in systems does play a huge role in the search‘s popularity though.

Fully agree. I find it surprising that Google’s public image deteriorated to a point where just mentioning rumors of them shutting down a service gets people upset with them.

They shut down services that aren’t profitable. Gmail is highly profitable as it’s an important lever to identify people’s interests, which they use to sell ads at a higher price. They’d have to be stupid to shut it down.

You comment is absolutely hilarious. I never realized how much of reddit consists of these empty shells.

Never claimed they had diverse data sources - they probably don’t.

My point is that that when minorities are underrepresented, which is the default case in GenAI, the (white, male) public tends to accept that.

I like that they tried to fix the issue of GenAI being racist and sexist. Even though the solution is obviously flawed: Better this than a racist model.

How is buying at IPO price a “privilege”? I get that options are a privilege, and gifted stocks are, too.