That sounds like just playing further and further into the game of the corrupt leaders. Who do you think would profit off that 5x margin? Would that margin come more likely from a scientific breakthrough of via some new exploitation of natural resources or human labor?

It's yearsss past time that our leaders should have changed policy.

> % of U.S. adults who say they think the impact of AI on __ over the next 20 years will be positive or negative

Blank | Negative | Positive | Equal | Not sure

Society | 40 | 16 | 31 | 13

Them, personally | 31 | 23 | 27 | 19

---

Probably as much a commentary on the fallacy that bad things won't happen to us, personally, as much as a commentary on AI. But I found the difference interesting.

Unfortunately it's already time to remove the "going to be" part of this.

I think we saw during covid that we most certainly can see the benefits in our lifetime if we took it more seriously.

I wonder what would happen if you tell the LLM to have no/less bias. What would the 1913 one say

They don't have any concept of their "personal" bias, so they'd imitate whatever training data they received that was tagged as not being biased, if there even was any.

I feel like you're wrong about this and small phones. Perhaps you're the one in an "everyone on HN must be in a bubble" bubble.

Small phones are definitely only wanted by a minority. A minority Apple catered too, but I guess has left behind or pushed further out.

Googled "radio controlled clock" and seeing results from $20-$200, lots of inconsistency in what the product is.

These are usually marketed as "atomic time" or "atomic clock" here in the US.

Look at the user lists that the band/album is included in. The title of the list should give you a good idea of what else you'll find on it.

You can also click on any one of the band/album's genres and look at the charts.

How does more pollution/waste equal higher consumer cost? Do you mean because we'll have to pay more taxes because we'll need more publicly funded resources to clean up the excess waste? Or because corporations would pass the price of the fines for violating environmental regulations onto consumers?

It doesn't matter much how exactly those costs are passed on; someone has to eventually pay for them. That includes the energy itself, which doesn't come for free, but also the bill for environmental damage and resource exhaustion that we will have to pay at some point. You can argue that that'll be the case only in the far future, but then you're just externalising the cost—again—to future generations. It's all moot: Someone will pay for it eventually.

True, but there's probably many ways to do this and unless AI content starts falsifying tons of its metadata (which I'm sure would have other consequences), there's definitely a way.

Plus other sites that link to the content could also give away it's date of creation, which is out of the control of the AI content.

I have heard of a forum (I believe it was Physics Forums) which was very popular in the older days of the internet where some of the older posts were actually edited so that they were completely rewritten with new content. I forget what the reasoning behind it was, but it did feel shady and unethical. If I remember correctly, the impetus behind it was that the website probably went under new ownership and the new owners felt that it was okay to take over the accounts of people who hadn't logged on in several years and to completely rewrite the content of their posts.

I believe I learned about it through HN, and it was this blog post: https://hallofdreams.org/posts/physicsforums/

It kind of reminds me of why some people really covet older accounts when they are trying to do a social engineering attack.

> website probably went under new ownership

According to the article, it was the founder himself who was doing this.