The only way I'd ever pay for chatgpt or use it for real is if all communication with it was encrypted from the start. For the kind of sensitive information going back and forth for the kind of real world projects these technologies will be used for it makes sense for ChatGPT to encrypt it all even from itself.
What happens with counseling CGPTs? If someone tells a chatbot therapist they cheated on their husband and that data leaks who pays for it?
Yes. He's using the perception of impulsivity to his advantage. How these people think he's that dumb is beyond me. They apparently are very prone to groupthink and should be exited.
Edit: I'm posting to fast (1 post per hour is too fast) so here is my response to Milo.
Not everything associated with someone you don't like has to have parallels to Donald Trump.
Here are the facts:
1) Twitter needs help
2) Everyone in the world knows it
3) Elon has billions to pay top tier workers
4) Resignations with pay prevent disgruntled sabotage
5) Tech layoffs rumbling across the industry
6) Twitter is about to have their pick of the litter
7) While former Twits are going to actually have to compete
Treating your existing staff with disrespect makes hiring much harder. The pick of the litter will get multiple offers, even the most mecurial may choose a safer bet.
Big bag of popcorn open here for the game. Looks like it's the top of the second inning now.
Musk has been part of companies that started with and around him. Coming into something mature is a different thing. I suspect he's got at least some learning curve.
I cannot fathom how anyone watches Jerry Springer, so I can't answer that question. My question is why would advertisers pay for an Elon Musk owned communication channel? A scripted show like Jerry Springer has limits and advertisers can rely on that. Twitter is completely unpredictable. Displaying advertisements next to unpredictable has had very bad outcomes in the past. Good bad or other, that is what Elon has to demonstrate he understands.
Ok, how about Howard Stern? People who hated Stern were most likely to listen to him. He had people masturbate on his show, curse, yell racist remarks...etc. Everything people expect Twitter to become and fail from yet Stern (30 years ago) made his bones off such behavior.
The difference today is that advertisers don't apparently have to make money they just have to do what Blackrock tells them. That seems to be the difference.
What brands advertise on Howard Stern? They are probably closer to the same ones Joe Rogan and Alex Jones rely on. Sketchy. Shit. Not-Disney-Monies.
Howard doesn't give 2 fucks as long as there are some $s and people talk about him.
PG&E? I mean, how about Eli Lilly or Lockheed? Perhaps Disney wants to pr...c'mon. The "Blackrock tell them" line is a lame callback to some Ted Cruz-level BS.
Would you put your company's money into Twitter ad buys, knowing that Elon just let BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of market value evaporate for few $8 subs that will be canceled before they can be counted towards ARR?
Twitter is being starved by its owner(s) - we can't forget the % Saudi Arabia owns, etc. The brands that come forward to take advantage of the eyeballs looking at a traffic accident involve MyPillow™ caliber Capitalism.
Twitter is an accidental global square, a dial-tone for the Internet. Monetizing it to profit will murder it. There may be a whiz out there with the outside-the-box thinking to pull it off without destroying 3rd world knowledge access and the global idea of democracy - but Elon is nowhere near that cat (nor am I!).
Now he's gonna be out most of his funny money (and other narcissists cash too), unless he weaponizes and sells the data. Still loses most of that $, but Humanity can lose a lot more in that equation.
Would very much like to see this kind of tech miniaturized for the use in homesteading. Would be nice to have autonomous cultivation at home. Would make having a lawn useful again.
That's because stagnation is setting in. Inflation will settle around 5-6% while consumption declines 10-12% over the next year as credit dries up with a massive decline in savings.
Effective Altruism is bullshit and here is why; because, the invisible hand has already shown itself to be a far better lever of human good through the acceptance of human nature. "Helping people" implies you know what people need. It's a power position to begin with and thus designed to fulfill the doers goals of doing good not the receivers 'need' of being helped.
Each of us, individually, pursuing our own self-interests produce value to society and others as a whole. Whether through producing products, offering services, performing labor, or consuming goods, we all seek our own interests to the betterment of the whole.
EA is just a new sort of chivalry for a new wannabe class of Nobles. That's it.
>"Helping people" implies you know what people need.
No it doesn't. I'm content to outsource my charitable decision-making to recommenders that I think align with my values. A competitor is free to come along and convince me that they'd make a better recommendation and I'll shift my money accordingly, just like buying any other product. They can even skim a bit off the top if I really trust them and give to their funds! That's the invisible hand.
The concept that seeking our own interests is to the betterment of the whole seems to be demonstrably false.. For example consider the tobacco and fossil fuel executives who are trying to delay the phase-out of their products. Or the people who buy/sell meat in spite of the resulting ecological damage & animal suffering.
By the way, a charity quite popular in mainstream Effective Altruism is Give Directly - which aims to avoid trying to figure out what poor people need by giving them cash.
EA is about the most "invisible hand"-friendly school of philanthropic thought going, complete with ethical arguments generally siding in favour of individuals preferring to take the best paid private sector job going to raise funds rather than working directly for nonprofits.
Agreed, they are ridiculous measures, but I'd say this is exactly what "globalization" has intended from the beginning. Internationalism was different; where Globalists seeks to tear down walls by building gates, Internationalists seek to overcome borders by building bridges.
Lawyers and our legal system have become a social net-negative. The profession, by design, seeks to constrain activity for the benefit (hindsight protection) of a few. The truth is that many 'landmark' cases are completely manufactured and bench hunted. AI judgments will likely be no different.
The most important AI for our future is going to be the legal AI that allows people free defense from corporate bullies and trolls. Unfortunately, this kind of tech will likely be bought by Westlaw or LexisNexis and simply used to supplement current practice instead of revolutionize representation.
Whoa, that's crazy. Why wouldn't they just build a cart to tow it all with? There had to be some level of pride in how much you could carry or how far you made deliveries.
The risk involved in losing an order, or dozens it would seem, all at once back then had to outweigh the benefit of delivery in this method - unless these guys were so good they never dropped it.
What happens with counseling CGPTs? If someone tells a chatbot therapist they cheated on their husband and that data leaks who pays for it?