Maybe it only behaves as a particle when it’s being observed?

Well, at least the American taxman accepted Euros.

In my country we have a saying: “You can’t please both Greeks and Trojans” (which, to be Historically correct, should have been Athenians and Trojans)

Anyways, the point is that there will always be somebody who doesn’t like you or something you do even whilst others will.

No point in trying to please everybody and caring about what everybody things.

Knowing how to spot genuine sexual enjoyment (from body reactions that can’t actually be willed into happening) really spoils most porn, even the “amateur” stuff.

The Moral problem isn’t the Sex, it’s the Work, specifically the being forced to Work within an Economic and Political structure set-up and de facto controlled by others, to merelly survive.

We’re born in a World were somebody else already owns all the stuff we need to survive (most notably Land), and unless lucky to have been born in a high net worth family, de facto slaves who have no option but to Work for the owners of everything in order to survive, and for some people that means Sex Work.

In this line of Work like in many others, I bet that if something like a proper Universal Income came along a lot of people, thus having an actual choice, would be doing something else.

There’s no problem in doing Sex Work because you want to, there is a problem in doing Sex Work because you have to.

You seem to be running around with some serioulsy lack of life experience and understanding of people plus are probably subconsciously influenced by exposure to American-style hyperreductive politics (i.e. namelly the Red Scare bollocks) so let me tell you a story:

I’m a member a small leftwing party in my country. Now, this country used to be under a Fascist dictatorship and had a Revolution which overthrew it about 50 years ago. The result of this is that some older people who fought against Fascism and were deeply involved in Politics during the Revolution are pretty hard-core leftwingers in older more traditional ways.

Now this party I’m in isn’t the Communist Party (yeah, my country has one), differing mainly because it’s against autoritarian approaches to improving people’s lives. That said, a number of members there are from the old generation, who grew up under Fascism with one or other variant of Communism as the lighthouse signalling their way to a better world.

Back when Russia invaded Ukraine, I was having a conversation with some “comrades” from the party (yeah, even though not being the Communist Party, the party I’m in has inherited a lot of elements from the anti-Fascism revolutionary origins of its founding members, and that includes that other party members are “comrades”) and one of the older ones immediatelly sided with Russia.

Now, I happen to understand were he’s coming from (and YOU CLEARLY WOULD NOT AND JUDGING BY YOUR SIMPLETON JUDGEMENTAL TAKE, WOULD NOT EVEN TRY) - his political birth was under a Fascist dictatorship, were the by far loudest political messaging for change and the main light illuminating the path out was the Soviet Union’s variant of Communism (most people rotting in the Fascist political prisons were Communists) so of course his instinctive reaction was to think “Russia must be doing this for a good reason” and side with them: that’s just tribalist fanboyism talking (and in my experience the one thing Soviet and Mao’s styles of Communism do well is turning people into unthinking tribalist fanboys, something which people like the OP with their blunt adversarial approach actually help because they reinforce the “fortress mentality” side of that propaganda).

Guess what: I actually talked with him about it, pointed out this was a very big nation invading the territory of a smaller nation, one which they couldn’t possibly fear because it was so much smaller - thus a clear big aggressor and small victim situation - and that I was on the side of the victim - Ukraine - and against the aggressor - Russia - just like when the US invaded Iraq I was against the US and on the side of Iraq due to exactly the same Principle. I also pointed out that the claims of Russia of their actions being to “free” Ukraine were exactly like America’s claims when invading Iraq and that Freedom comes from self-determination, not violent invasion by a foreign nation (a take which ressonates with how my own country overthrew BY ITSELF Fascism and brought Democracy)

THAT got him thinking and him thinking got him to change his mind about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and side with Ukraine instead of Russia - ultimatelly brains and principles overrode the knee-jerk pro-Russia from the indoctrination in his younger years.

(Granted, this would be a lot harder with members of the actual Communist Party - this guy wasn’t in the Communist Party exactly because he had tried it and disliked it mainly because of their spirit of wanting to impose things on others - i.e. the authoritarianism - so he left and ended up in an anti-autoritarian small leftwing party)

So, you see, not all tankies are alike and IN THE WHOLE WORLD (most of which is not the US) there are a whole lot of reasons and life paths for people ending up with those beliefs, and doing like the OP did and just poking them like a little child that afterwards runs back to their friends boasting about having poked them and how angry they got, ain’t gonna change the ones who can change, it’s just going to keep them there or even push them further in.

It all feels kinda performative…

Well, yeah, that’s like going into a German sub and saying how you detest the way of doing things of both Germans and French.

You’re criticizing their way of doing things and just because you’re criticizing somebody else, doesn’t make it any better (in fact, mentioning them like side by side makes it sound you think they’re equivalent, which will piss of a few more people).

Not that think the point you made in that post you listed here is incorrect, rather I’m criticizing your “surprise” at the reaction to what you did in the context you did it: I mean if you walked into a Nazi bar and called Hitler a cunt it would be both be true that “You’re correct” and “You set yourself up to be assaulted by Nazis”.

I don’t think you understand either the concept of Statistics or the one of common sense.

You’re comparing frequent extreme events of an obviously nonsensical nature by LLMs given very limited responsibility (like the one were it tells a person with suicidal thoughts to “kill yourself”) with rare events due to design failures of highly complex systems in situations of huge responsibility.

That’s not merely as mismatched as an “apples” and “oranges” comparison, that’s as mismatched as an “apples” and “major engineering project” comparison.

Now ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for apple pie.

Even people with zero experience in counseling don’t tell a person who is thinking of committing suicide to “kill themselves” and even those with zero culinary experience don’t tell others they’re supposed to put glue on top pizza when you’re making it.

To do that a human needs not just have zero experience but actually have no common sense whatsoever.

Further, even with such people, it’s only if they’ve been given the tools to do things with a huge impact that it becomes a problem: that’s pretty much “child with a loaded gun” situations.

The number of humans that inept given such power is minuscule (pretty much just children given loaded guns), whilst every single Agentic AI out there is that stupid and they’re currently being given “loaded guns” all the time.

The problem is exactly that Agentic AIs are being given adult responsibilities and have the capacity for complex operations whilst having the common sense and reasoning abilities equivalent to those of a small child.

Samsung’s estimated $73 billion profit (source) divided by 45,000 is over $1.6 million.

According to this Samsung is forecasting $73 billion in profits for 2026.

For 45,000 employees that would be a bit over $1.6 million per person.

Now, granted, only the SK Hynix profits count and it’s only 35,000 employees, but the numbers seem to be in the right ballpark.

That $460,000 number only seem suspiciously high to most people because we’re not use to thinking in billions and we seriously overestimate how tiny the fraction of the value they create ends up in the hands of workers in sectors like High Tech.

The way GDP is calculated you can in the short term create GDP “growth” by using debt to invest in things whose eventual return on investment is less than 1.

My point is that for Agentic AI mistakes with catastrophic consequences are just as likelly as minor mistakes, which is not the case for people because humans can spot the “obviously stupid” or “obviously dangerous”, plus they make more of an effort to avoid mistakes that can have very bad consequences, so they tend to make catastrophic mistakes will less probability than minor mistakes.

People giving psychological advice are incredibly unlikely to tell suicidal people to “kill yourself”, those giving food recipes are incredibly unlikely to say that pizza should have glue on top or those deploying software in Production are incredibly unlikely to delete the whole fucking Production environment including backups.

So even if the total rate of mistakes of an an Agentic AI was less than a human, its rate of catastropic mistakes would still be much higher than a human.

This is however not obvious unless one actually analises the risk profile of using Agentic AI in a specific place in a specific process, a skill very few people have plus it requires information about and/or understanding of Agentic AI which itself very few people have and the AI vendors activelly do not want people to have.

So you end up with an e-mail fluffing and defluffing machine being used to summarize and store medical info about patients and then down the line somebody gets given something that kills them because the data on file had a critical mistake.

This is why I said that its “the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here” that limit Agentic AI suitability: because generally you’re going to have way more catastrophic mistakes with an AI that you will even with even an human with no domain experience.

Agentic AI is mainly an entertainment technology being pushed as something that can take over professional responsabilities.

It’s being pushed like that because a lot of investors have been trying to get a new Web (1.0) Bubble running - the Internet was the last Tech that speculative investor could ride to infinity and beyond, ending up having an impact on everything (mobile also had an impact on everything but it wasn’t driven by such investors) and a lot of speculative investors in Tech have wanted their turn in the Get Stupidly Rich Quick wheel since 2000.

The social media bubble, even though it made a few people lots of money, was way smaller because its impact in businesses was much more limited than the Internet.

So for a lot of use cases where Agentic AI is being pushed, it’s kinda like pushing using Facebook or the Rubik Cube for all kinds of responsabilities business environments.

The funny bit is that without the insane hype from that kind of investors, Agentic AI would right now be finding the niches it’s well suited for, rather than being put in places were the kind of mistakes it makes once in a while can end lives, destroy careers and collapse companies.

The list of valid use cases for AI is bound by “what is the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here”, because the statistical distribution of mistakes in terms of severity of consequences of things like Agentic AI is uniform (meaning, they’re just as likely to do the worst mistakes with the nastiest consequences as they are doing the smallest mistakes), which it is not the case with humans who make more of an effort and give more attention to avoiding catastrophic mistakes and also have a “this is stupid” (i.e. don’t put glue in pizza, don’t tell a suicidal person to kill themselves) recognition capability which also stops a lot of the nastiest mistakes.

This is something which is not noticeable to most people because most people don’t have deep enough process experience in at least one expert domain and process analysis experience, to upfront recognized anything beyond the “in your face” elements of using AI (or using anything, really) in a process.

Very few people would think “what’s the risk profile for this business of giving this thing these responsabilities”.

So they seriously overestimate what are valid use cases for AI, something that the hype around it also pushes for: not a single AI vendor will ever mention just “error distribution” or anything close to it.

Obviously, when the thing blows up catastrophically by doing something which for a human is “obviously a bad idea”, THEN people recognized that AI is unsuitable for that, but by then its often too late.

(Easy example: lawyers using AI to make submissions to the Court and ending up disbarred because those submissions “quoted” invented case law).

So I don’t expect Agentic AI to fuck society up by taking a large fraction of the jobs, I expect Agentic AI to fuck society up by an accumulation over time of random catastrophic mistakes that kill people and collapse otherwise stable companies, mistakes that humans in such positions would never do or at least be way less likely to do.

It’s going to be akin to death by cummulative poisoning.

The economics of it don’t add up and the growth rate of the curve of improvement over time has already significativelly fallen which looking at the historical curves for other technologies is a very strong indication that it’s approaching the limits of how far it will go even though it’s nowhere close to the hype.

So at both levels it all looks like a massive bet in the wrong horse that’s turning out not to be a winner but it keeps getting pushed by those who bet on it in the hope of making enough people and companies dependent that its sustained by nothing more than the unacceptable cost of it failing.

(In terms of strategy, it’s similar to how Uber started by using loopholes in the regulations for taxis, investing heavilly in becoming so big and established fast that when Authorities around the world got around to address those loopholes, they ended up accepting Uber and the like as something that could not be reversed and instead of regulating it out of existence, legitimized it. A very similar strategy was used by AirBNB: make the facts on the ground so big and reverting them so damaging that their low-value-adding business model with massive negative externalities and collateral damage ends up protected rather than made to pay for the societal costs of said collateral damage and negative externalities - essentially at some level Uber and especially AirBNB are being heavilly subsidized by society by being allowed to “polute” at will without paying for it).

So as I see it, the way Microsoft and other AI investors are going at it is to try and create a beachhead for it via hype, branding and lock-in in the expectation that something will come along at some point from the companies they invested in that is actually a genuine breakthrough that uses all the computing capacity created with their investment money.

I think that the reason why from the point of view of the public the AI adoption feels wrong is because it’s almost entirelly top-down, driven by marketing techniques and against the natural desires of people - it’s a novel form of entertainment being shoved down people’s throats as suitable for important responsabilities.

From my own experience, this feel a lot like the hype part of the cycle for the Segway, only with 100x or 1000x more investment money behind it.

deleted by creator

The entire “AI” wave (and I use quote to distinguish it from what was previously called AI and from ML in general) was almost entirelly hype driven by greed, not just from run-of-the-mill grifters and speculative investors, but also ultra-rich types and gigantic companies.

As I see it, Microsoft went at pushing it in Windows in exactly that spirit - ultra-greedilly, insanelly and almost desperatelly pushing in any way they could think of no matter how maladapted for as fast as possible public adoption of “AI” to quickly go from investment stage to the cash-out stage.

The spirit of a grifter burning previously built up name and goodwill to push their own “coin” as hard as possible to cash out of it before people figure out it’s all a con, not the well thought out roll-out of a long term strategy of a dominant company.

The whole thing feels like MS being used as a vehicle for a giant grift (curiously, kinda like the Trump presidency).

deleted by creator