Did you think the goal was to cure COVID or something? Curbing the spread is a collection of small efforts and they thought of themselves as above it. Fuck em.

Stop claiming something has to be rocket science in order to be semi-comllicated and operationally intense.

No, a pilot program is literally so that any problems in the rollout(any large rollout ever has them) have a minimal financial effect, and then you very quickly bootstrap those lessons into the wider plan. What you're suggesting wouldn't even speed things up that much and very well could doom the program again if a small issue runs amok because they opened the floodgates too early.

"roll out the old plans" is pretty clearly an oversimplification of what it takes to run an infrastructure service in a major city. It's not simple.

This guy - standing strong with no-tolerance against big bottled water (despite some reasonable use-cases, just like any product). Too brave.

"Oh please" google it and try learning things once in a while

There are a lot of reasons people need to buy bottled water, sometimes medical.

How do you not realize that this would probably create editorialized headlines that are also racist?

That would only add a new problem to the equation which would be editorialized clickbait. Better to just translate the dumb thing already being said verbatim.

This wasn't the question .. we all know shit is bad, but his question wasn't "is shit bad?" it was wether or not the Ohio crash made this water quality much WORSE than already.

crickets

Thank you, token nihilist in the back. Anyone have anything of value to contribute?

Give me a break, eye-scanning a reddit thread for rough percentages is NEEEEEVWR going to be a scientifically sound sampling method. You'd have do actually do the test according to the actual specifications of the test. Anything else you wanna try to bend into being the test .... isn't.

What is being marketed and developed as "AI" is garbage, and we should all rally against it as being a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

Okay? Nobody is saying it is?

"Better" marks a level of quality, what you are talking about is profitability. Capitalism being a cancer on society doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to use language correctly. If you don't like it you cloud at least take some effort to play along with it's mistruths less.

Like, we are literally talking about inferior products, services, knowledge... everything. Of course if you're LYING about these things being of equal value to previous options, that's going to be more profitable if nobody is calling it out.

But the results are inferior and not better. Its really important that we don't give a shit about these profitability metrics that the system you and I dislike put in front of us. It's one thing to be realistic about the system we live in. It's another thing entirely to take no action against it as if it's inevitable and that resistance is futile.

What a cynical view. Cost-effectively making your service, product or content worse isn't better. "Better" is supposed to represent more than just monetary gain. Quality of life, effect on society.... hello? Just because investors treat the world like a game and think the only thing that makes something "better" is a higher number on a piece of paper does not make that reality.

When we chase nothing but profitability we forget that we are humans with lives.

Good interaction you two. I am in my late 30s and I also believe I will see some major fallout from AI use in my lifetime.personally. Good discussion and stay in good health both of you!

This automatic assumption of "better" is both hilariously naieve and terribly scary to me.

Paying a monthly fee for a service run by a giant corporation isn't democracy, bud

Open Source plays nice with capitalism every day.

This isn't a pro-capitalist stance mind you, fuck capitalism. It's more about how open source is amazing.

Also, everything isn't an overthrow. Everyone wants an overnight revolution but most things happen over time.

A better option existing for a long time will slowly make the capitalistic impulses less attractive.

Even with your decent points in mind - no, it's still not creativity. The complexity and self-generstive qualities must be there. I know your point is that it will "get there" but to your point, it is not there yet. So no, it doesn't qualify as creativity because it's only a system that simulates creativity.

I realize you're still claiming that human creativity is still just a rehashed bundle of inputs but we don't have the complexity I'm AI to actually perform this action, therefore it is not there yet.

But "to me" isn't the test. Hundreds of other people made the spot that you didn't.

No, because it's a trash article that everyone spotted right away

This isn't a conversation about better or worse, how "good" they are is centrally the problem. This is an ethics conversation.

It's written by ChatGPT, of course it's nonsense.

It absolutely isn't objective at all. Your post is filled with personal judgements. "Frozen smile crowd"? That implies a lot, and is a sort of "I'm better than you" mentality that overall just seems to lead to narcissism. Overall there should be a balance. I think that trying to apply any of these thoughts patterns wholistically is wrong though. Ultimately, skeptical realism is mostly helpful in situations of repeated issues. One cannot predict the future, and one cannot truly know what's in the heart of anyone else. This is why, as a whole, trust is so important to maintain, because without trust in other people there is no life. We need other humans to survive, and that resource becomes unavailable the more cynical you are.