I read it and still share the same response. You expect him to say he will not hire someone to coordinate trash pickup based on their foreign policies? Lol okay.

They want artificial employees to discipline the labor market but what they will get instead is a deskilled labor force and business structures that are even more resistant to adaptation.

When being a contrarian asshole becomes your marketing strategy.

Our political system equates value to revenue and that is why we don’t tax accordingly. Business owners are labeled “job creators” and taxing them is framed as a negative value add.

Absolutely agree that athletes are also being exploited here and the burden should not fall on them to correct this (except as advocates for a better system).

This. Everyone wants qualified, well paid teachers for their kids, just like how most people want universal healthcare. But our government and media structure actively disempowers any such movements in that direction. Ie “we can agree we all want these things but we can’t agree on how”

And when the social sector lobbies it is called “special interests” by the press. When capital owners do it they are called “job creators” by the press. Edit: or so it goes in the states.

Revenue is not the same as value, teachers enable much more economic activity than athletes. The fact we equate “profit generated” to the value of the profession is part of the problem.

Was thinking about this in the context of a joke I heard in the late 90s:

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start.

We didn’t we have jokes like that about the billionaires; at the time people were glazing Bill Gates. It’s wild because billionaires are the ones writing the laws, lawyers just act it out.

But maybe if I use AI I can be wealthy. Sure it is accelerating climate change and will undoubtedly cost lives, but that is a small price to pay for me to horde money like a dragon.

I’m skeptical they could do it in a way that meaningfully inherits stability from Linux. Imagine bolting on their service control on top of systemd or map their registry system to /etc. They either bring all the bad over to Linux or write something that doesn’t support the windows ecosystem.

I’m going to call a spade a spade.

In the same spirit, Americans are more interested in telling themselves they are right than recognizing what is good.

If you don’t like the competition then don’t participate in said competition. Other people don’t agree with you that it is an arbitrary rule and that’s okay.

So you would say a godot competition is silly because it restricts developers from using other game engines? Now you’re just being silly.

Some people provide translated subtitles and the app does have a built in translator function. I found it’s enough to converse, but definitely niche.

I haven’t been banned yet, but then again I save all my shitposts for the fediverse and stick to book reviews on RedNote.

The rules being “idiotic” is a different issue from whether using pre-existing assets as placeholders is okay. For instance, one could argue that genAI, even during the concept phase, is an unfair advantage like taking steroids for a sports competition. For the purpose of fairness they have a blanket ban on genAI, not simply because “AI bad”.

Like I said, when talking about morality you’re talking about a subjective perception of value. All the other issues I mentioned, like them not following the rules, have objective criteria to say “yes they broke the rules”. If your perception of authenticity includes gathering inspiration not from the originator but from a tool that samples art for you, then you would obviously conclude the end result is authentic. If however you define authenticity as something uniquely in the domain of the living, then they would not agree with you.

I would say that this is conflating different issues. The original issue is whether or not the entry followed the stated rules, they did not. Then you brought up whether using any tool at all is cheating or plagiarizing, obviously it is not. Now we are on a 3rd issue which is whether using genAI for placeholders is actually creative, obviously it is not because it isn’t part of the final creative product. And a 4th issue as to whether using AI is a “sin” or not, that is less obvious not because it depends on one’s moral framework and their values. For instance, if one values authenticity then they would likely agree using AI as part of the process makes a less authentic product, while someone who values profit or time more than authenticity would not see an issue with its use.

Most humans can learn on the fly though. If they see people taking turns at a broken stoplight they’re likely to follow that example.

It makes stonks go up