> I have a hard enough time using and trusting snippet engines or doing due diligence in implementing a solution I find on stack overflow.
Is it possible you are not breaking the problem the right way? I.e get better at understanding what it can do for you and conveying to it in a better way what you want.
To me it seems like a huge handicap not using these. At the same time if you use it too much your skills may degrade overtime (maybe the skills that degrade are not worth holding onto in this new world anyway... we'll see).
It reliably acts like a junior dev who can sort of complete the statement or add the next N branches after you add a few lines. But you have to be good at spotting bugs or inefficient implementations quickly and probe it till it corrects it.
continue to bill you even after you cancel your payment. Apparently you have to cancel the contract (which they hide away under several menu options) or they will continue to bill you and you are legally required to pay it or they send debt collectors after you.
I would have bought premium years ago if the free version lets you play in background when on mobile. This attitude of going out of your way to cripple EXTREMELY basic feature to get me to pay premium didn't sit well with me.
Asking me to pay for the ability to have background play to me is akin to opening a restaurant and serving unsalted food and asking 2% extra for salt in the food.
I already pay for a few other google services (google one, google cloud etc) and their customer service (that I have needed on the rare occasion) is ..... almost non existent as well.
Will most probably use alternate frontends or a pihole or whatever other alternative there is for as long as I can.
I guess it depends what you mean by a "doomer." If, to you, "doomer" means you have to act like Yudkowsky and go around saying it's urgent to unilaterally destroy all GPU data centers with military force then no he's not a doomer.
But if "doomer" is allowed to include a Cambridge educated professor and Fellow of the Royal Society with a 'stiff upper lip' who finds himself surprised to realize that the caterpillar of humanity is creating the butterfly of AI and that "the caterpillar gets converted into a soup out of which the butterfly is created" as quoted in the first tweet thread that you listed, then maybe he could deserve the doomer label.
In another interview, in his response to 'why we should be scared' asked by a reporter he said that "as a friend of mine said, it’s as if some genetic engineers said, we’re going to improve grizzly bears; we’ve already improved them with an IQ of 65, and they can talk English now, and they’re very useful for all sorts of things, but we think we can improve the IQ to 210." Presumably this guy is understated enough to trust the listener to understand that he thinks that might reasonably scare someone.
Of course he's a doomer. He's compared himself to Robert Oppenheimer and by his own admission the only reason he isn't calling for a complete halt to all AI research is because he's too pessimistic it'd be possible. He describes a man who wants to literally bomb datacenters as "not crazy", just "not helpful" i.e. he'd be totally on board with such tactics if he thought they were more plausible.
> Talking about the dangers of AI is not the same as being a doomer
It is in fact the same thing as being a doomer if you're claiming that something unstoppable will lead to doom, in the same way that pointing out government coverups of lab leaks technically makes you a conspiracy theorist.
Lots of good answers which add a lot more value than mine. I'd like to answer it with an xkcd comic - https://xkcd.com/1425/ that hopefully gets the message across as to why we estimate.
