andallthat

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

that's not what is said here. The Federal government is prosecuting him and the States of New York and Pennsylvania are prosecuting him too. The lawyer is arguing that's too many prosecutions for the same alleged crime.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

when your only skills are being angry and stupid you have to get creative

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

true! Plus, there are already a bunch of really bad popes in the history of Christianity that would give Trump a run for his money

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

But on my personal list of "thoughts that make me shit my pants" living in a real-world Handsmaid's tale ranks pretty high, though.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

Most kings, dictators, emperors in history claimed to be gods themselves or at least to have been chosen by whatever gods were popular in their territories.

Generally none of these guys were big on following the moral teachings of "their" religion, more to claim that what they want is a direct emanation of the will of the gods, so it must just be accepted.

That's why separation of Church and State is a thing in a working democracy and that's (of f-ing course) why it's now being targeted

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

and he would have done it too! If only that Biden stopped interfering and ruining the economy. /s

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

nah, Trump is a rage-powered sack of IOUs badly arranged to resemble a real human being. If you want to get rid of Trump, you have to try to delight him and remove his power source. All of his cabinet and several world leaders are trying more an more openly to kill him this way. The true unsung heroes of our time!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think that's already uncomfortably close to reality.

A fully AI company was already tried as an experiment. There is also a company that appointed an AI CEO but I suspect this one is a publicity stunt. The experiment was a "failure" by the way, with AI agents only completing less than 20% of the tasks in the fake company and with some hilarious mishaps. But 20% of a company tasks being done in full autonomy by (not specifically trained) AI is scary.

Right now, various socials are full of AI generated fake engagement, images and videos. Meta is offering AI-powered ads. The obvious question I see asked every time, also here on Lemmy, is: if most of Facebook becomes a zombie world where comments and fake engagement is all LLMs, who would buy those Meta ads? That question was actually what inspired this wildly successful (-27 votes and counting!) showerthought of mine: this fake engagement only makes sense if Meta thinks we'll give AI more and more agency to choose the products we buy and (eventually) buy them on our behalf. So it's going to be AI convincing other AIs to buy. Our money becomes sentient, so to speak,

Crazy talk, right? Well....

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Thanks! I'll try longer showers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

If Utilitarianism is about maximizing overall benefit and minimizing harm, Trump is an Inutilitarian

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

but wait until he can't find a good inflatable doll any longer...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

I like the comparison. We used to think of the Economy like this hard-to-control, vital but occasionally dangerous natural force, like Gravity. The showerthought was that with the advent of machine models, money has started becoming sentient and making decisions without us.

 

Most of our financial decisions are already algorithmically driven.

Now with this vision of the near future where e-commerce uses only AI-generated content on apps built by AI developers and AI-agents (soon?) buying it independently, money does not need a human in the middle any longer.

 

I have posted this on Reddit (askeconomics) a while back but got no good replies. Copying it here because I don't want to send traffic to Reddit.

What do you think?

I see a big push to take employees back to the office. I personally don't mind either working remote or in the office, but I think big companies tend to think rationally in terms of cost/benefit and I haven't seen a convincing explanation yet of why they are so keen to have everyone back.

If remote work was just as productive as in-person, a remote-only company could use it to be more efficient than their work-in-office competitors, so I assume there's no conclusive evidence that this is the case. But I haven't seen conclusive evidence of the contrary either, and I think employers would have good reason to trumpet any findings at least internally to their employees ("we've seen KPI so-and-so drop with everyone working from home" or "project X was severely delayed by lack of in-person coordination" wouldn't make everyone happy to return in presence, but at least it would make a good argument for a manager to explain to their team)

Instead, all I keep hearing is inspirational wish-wash like "we value the power of working together". Which is fine, but why are we valuing it more than the cost of office space?

On the side of employees, I often see arguments like "these companies made a big investment in offices and now they don't want to look stupid by leaving them empty". But all these large companies have spent billions to acquire smaller companies/products and dropped them without a second thought. I can't believe the same companies would now be so sentimentally attached to office buildings if it made any economic sense to close them.

view more: next ›