That was before they knew AI needed a bunch of money.

Did you mean to post this comment in 2021?

It didn't land well; and GPs quip was astute on how the tone and narrative of your comment is 5 years outdated, regardless.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. And talking about what happened in the past is called historic, not outdated.

They're not mutually exclusive.

I don't see how talking about abject failures of leadership and policy response in the first term is "outdated" when the second term is essentially a doubling down on these derelictions of duty.

Are we just supposed to forget those past failures in favor of focusing on the current catastrophe? What tariff tantrum? What Greenland treachery? Don't you know we've always been at war with Iran?

Maybe it's unavailable in your region. Four options on this page for me.

https://antigravity.google/pricing

Even if an AI company spends more on inference than their revenue, that does not mean that they are selling inference at a loss.

The primary source for most news is journalism.

In context, primary source means the subject of the article (the thing the journalist is writing about).

Journalism is by definition a secondary source. (Notwithstanding edge cases like articles reporting directly on the news industry itself.)

Journalism is absolutely not by definiton a secondary source.

If a journalist is on location covering a flood, for example, they are the primary source.

A journalist conducting an interview would also be a primary source.

The doctor using the word “whiplash” is one of the authors of the study.

You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem?

Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone?

> You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem?

It is, but it's one of the only tools they have to prevent the doxxing site to being reachable.

> Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed?

You mean the person doing the doing should be protected ?

>Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone?

Yes, it should have been opt-in. But unless you doesn't run JS, you kinda give right to the website you visit to run arbitrary code anyway.

Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return.

Of course, never aggressing anyone and transform any aggression agaisnt self into an opportunity to acculturate the aggressor into someone with the same empathic behavior is a paragon of virtuous entity. But paragons of virtue is not the median norm, by definition.

> Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return.

Another basic ethological expectation is that the strong dominate the weak, but maybe we shouldn’t base our moral framework around how things are, and rather on how they should be.

You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem?

Resorting to DDoS is not pretty, but "why is my violent behavior met with violence" is a little oblivious and reversal of victim and perpetrator roles.

> You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem?

I do think it’s a problem. You are the only one excusing bad behavior here.

If it's information that's medium-difficult to get, and the only people that would use the information to cause harm can easily put in more effort than that, then I don't think it's "violence" to post that information.

I think this is a weak framing. Lots of things are moral or immoral under specific circumstances. We should protect people from being murdered. I think murder is usually wrong. But we also likely agree that there are circumstances in which killing someone can be justified. If we can find context for taking a life, I'm quite sure we can find context for a DoS.

And what’s the context for using the internet traffic of your unsuspecting users to accomplish this?

Using the internet trafic of the persons using your service to protect your anonymity and thus, protecting the service itself.

In most jurisdictions informing them would potentially make them legally liable. The fact they had no knowledge shields them from liability.

So their desire to not be used to commit a cyberattack doesn’t factor in? As long as they aren’t legally liable, it doesn’t matter?

Also a checkbox that says something like “I would like to help commit a crime using my internet traffic” would keep people from having their traffic used without consent.

Unfortunately “consent” is a difficult to understand concept for a lot of the web and Silicon Valley.

I don't have strong feelings about that one way or the other, honestly.

There's an old legal maxim "in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis", that is "in a case of mutual fault the position of the defending party is the better one."

That works better when there is a defendant.

I can't really be mad about someone DDoSing someone who's trying to kill them.

People do not ever have any sort of moral or natural right to not get hit after starting shit.

Even if this were true, this does not justify any particular type of action, except maybe an in kind response.

For example, would they have been justified to murder the blogger?

This is far too general of a philosophy to be applied in the dark. You can't say, without any familiarity with what the actual software looks like whether a rewrite is the best way to proceed. There are plenty of projects that get bogged down in the inertia of a system that wasn't built right in the first place.

Also, modern AI is only a few years old at this point. Whatever has been built so far is hardly load bearing.

This post's title is hyperbolic at best. At best the author is noticing what most people have known for a long time, there are bots on the internet. Most interactions I have online are with real people. Maybe we will end up with a dead internet, but moderation is still possible currently.

The elephant in the room is that a lot of social media companies have a conflict of interest. They can juice their user metrics by not moderating bots as well as they could be.

Gemini is not a reliable source. You posted the only part of the AI response that isn't useful in verifying whether it is true.

Sure, I guess. I asked Gemini to give me some markdown of citations and the claims made that address the question:

https://share.google/aimode/v3Y9P3rYIx1oj9VI2

And I finally figured out how to get links to answers instead of just inlining the content as before. Anyways, there it is. We live in a time where questions like "Does inference or training use more compute?" can be answered quickly by just pasting it into a search box.