My instinct is also to retreat to technical solutions. But, unfortunately, it appears we engineers need to fight back in the legal and political domain to stand a chance.
I like to think someone can come along with Jobs-like charisma and redefine the public's intuition for personal computing again. Foundation models with maximally deterministic harnesses, voice assistants with honest, tasteful amounts of roboticism, maybe data tenancy that doesn't make you feel like a surveilled ecosystem prisoner.
NVIDIA local AI builds are moving in that direction, but are wildly expensive. I think a lot of the current AI backlash (esp data-centers) comes from the public's accurate intuition that the current centralized, monopolistic, cloud-centric solution disempowers them, and eats any gains this magical technology would've brought them. Plugging a sliver box into the wall and your router, with no recurring fees; that would make people feel different about "taking our jobs" because they would be the unquestionable beneficiary.
> voice assistants with honest, tasteful amounts of roboticism
Do you mean like, hey chatbot stop trying to be my best friend ?
This marketing tone that every company I do business with cares deeply about me as a person - this corrosive hypocritical nonsense has obviously been sucked up into AI training materials.
This type of response is one I keep seeing, maybe it's becoming a meme
It doesnt make any sense as an argument because nothing stops one from doing _both_: 1. use a practical solution now and 2. "fight back in the legal and political domain" hoping to achieve another solution in the future
Common sense favors pursuing #1 as the opponent in #2 has "limitless" resources and the process is extremely slow
A cynic might even see advocating #2 at the expense of #1 as a "call to inaction", i.e., "please do nothing", as almost all readers are unlikely to pursue such a difficult and costly "solution"
Framing the two options as either-or, i.e., one or the other but not #1 and not both, encourages readers to give up, accept the status quo and "let others do it", assuming they dont have the ability to pursue #2 themselves
When regulations are reduced to allow more density, the value of the land goes up because its productivity increases. The land can do more now, e.g. hold 10 apartments vs 1 house. The same land generates more rent so developers are willing to pay more for that land.
Meanwhile, the value of housing units goes down due to increased competition among sellers/landlords.
Consider two zoning changes.
1) You are a homeowner and more units are allowed on your parcel, e.g. single-family -> duplex. That increases your land value.
2) You are a homeowner and there is more density around you, but not on your parcel, e.g. apartments are allowed nearby but not on your street. Your land value does not increase. Your home value decreases due to increased competition. (Of course, there may be long term effects like the increased density actually leading to economic windfalls in the area, increasing its desirability, and then increasing your home value.)
Same here. “Do you want the one useful tip related to this topic that most people miss? It’s quite surprising.”
If it were so useful, just tell me in the first place! If you say “Yes” then it’s usually just a regurgitation of your prior conversation, not actually new information.
This immediately smelled of engagement bait as soon as the pattern started recently. It’s omnipresent and annoying.
Yes, ChatGPT just recently started to add these engagement phrased follow-ups;
“If you want, I can also show you one very common sign people miss that tells you…”
reply