I imagine it has to do with vulnerability. When you are asking for something or sharing something, being turned down feels personal. When doing it for someone else, it's no big deal if they say no.
Legalizing it is also a total war against the suppliers in most cases (just economically instead of with guns). By legalizing, you usually replace the current suppliers with ones you like.
I think this is a real challenge for everyone. In many ways potentially we need a restart of a wikipedia like site to document all the valid and good sources. This would also hopefully include things like source bias and whether it's a primary/secondary/tertiary source.
This is pushing the burden of proof on the society. Basically, asking everyone else to pitch in and improve sources so that ai companies can reference these trust worthy sources.
Outsourcing due diligence to a tool (or a single unified source) is the problem, not the solution.
For example, having a single central arbiter of source bias is inescapably the most biased thing you could possibly do. Bias has to be defined within an intellectual paradigm. So you'd have to choose a paradigm to use for that bias evaluation, and de facto declare it to be the one true paradigm for this purpose. But intellectual paradigms are inherently subjective, so doing that is pretty much the most intellectually biased thing you can possibly do.
I've seen a certain sensationalist news source write a story that went like this.
Site A: Bad thing is happening, cite: article Site B
* follow the source *
Site B: Bad thing is happening, cite different article on Site A
* follow the source *
Site A: Bad thing is happening, no citation.
I fear that's the current state of a large news bubble that many people subscribe to. And when these sensationalist stories start circulating there's a natural human tendency to exaggerate.
I don't think AI has any sort of real good defense to this sort of thing. 1 level of citation is already hard enough. Recognizing that it is citing the same source is hard enough.
There was another example from the Kagi news stuff which exemplified this. A whole article written which made 3 citations that were ultimately spawned from the same new briefing published by different outlets.
I've even seen an example of a national political leader who fell for the same sort of sensationalization. One who should have known better. They repeated what was later found to be a lie by a well-known liar but added that "I've seen the photos in a classified debriefing". IDK that it was necessarily even malicious, I think people are just really bad at separating credible from uncredible information and that it ultimately blends together as one thing (certainly doesn't help with ancient politicians).
When I'm working with new developers I always have to convince them to simplify their setup. Why are we on autoscaled, pay by the query infra when we are serving a few people. Then they complain how expensive it is. I had someone tell me that their costs were $1500/mon when they were in demo stages. I asked them why they aren't hosting on a single small server for $20. And they responded that it didn't matter because they were using free credits.
Except that those free credits will go away and you'll find yourself not wanting to do all the work to move it over when it would've been easier to do so when you just had that first monolith server up.
I think free credits and hyped up technology is to blame. So, basically a gamed onboarding process that gets people to over-engineer and spend more.
I'm not totally following the cost analysis from some of these comments. I agree that there's no reason to make your architecture overly complicated, especially if it will cost dev time. I'm not saying this as someone that does cloud very much. We normally do a single server. More as an outsider looking in.
If you load balance 4 smaller ec2 instances vs a larger one, it's significantly cheaper. There is overhead when you run the same app on 4 machines, but not as much as people think. An idle system uses 300-600mb of ram, leaving roughly 3.5gb vram usable, per machine.
4 t3.medium instances are about $119/mo, vs. an equivalent t3.2xlarge which is $238/mo.
Also people will often say Digital Ocean is cheaper, but they compare it to non-equivalent AWS services. A Digital Ocean VPS compared to an equivalent EC2 is about the same.
So I understand when people argue about complicating architecture or optimizing prematurely, but I don't think the math on actual server cost really checks out. I would prefer to do dedicated hosting, but Hetzner doesn't have that in the U.S.
In Poland, they have a "universal child benefit" that pays a stipend for every child you have.
They do pay for it and it is expensive, but apparently it made a large reduction in child poverty, so that's a win.
From my understanding, it also reduced women in the workforce and reduced investment in childcare infrastructure since more mothers were then taking care of children at home.
So this is possible, it just depends on what you want to incentivize.
The US has a similar thing with the child tax credit. It looks like Poland pays out the equivalent of about 220 a month while the child tax credit pays the equivalent of $180 per month. If you only count the refundable portion it is $140. Relative to the cost of living its worse, but the concept seems similar.
I assume if you are applying to AI roles, you use AI to find and possibly apply for you. So, we don't even need to understand what the titles mean because AI can do it for us.
I don't think I agree. I think it's the same and there is great potential for totally new things to appear and for us to work on.
For example, one path may be: AI, Robotics, space travel all move forward in leaps and bounds.
Then there could be tons of work in creation from material things from people who didn't have the skills before and physical goods gets a huge boost. We travel through space and colonize new planets, dealing with new challenges and environments that we haven't dealt with before.
Another path: most people get rest and relaxation as the default life path, and the rest get to pursue their hobbies as much as they want since the AI and robots handle all the day to day.
Rate per person does not counter neuroelectrons hypothesis.
If you have 100 people standing around for a year, they probably have lower injuries than the same 100 people who are using heavy machinery over the course of a year. And it's not like most corporations are efficient.
SpaceX may have less redundancy in their workforce causing the injury rate to go up since more people are working more often.
Or SpaceX is overworking people in unsafe conditions and causing way more injuries.
Either way, rate per person does not negate people working vs. Not.
