I'm pretty sure watermarking is (or soon will be) a requirement for AI generated images in software used in the EU, as part of their regulations for AI transparency.
If i had a dollar for every time an American cried about literally any non-US jurisdiction having an iota of effect on them I could quit my job and leave this terrible website forever.
Picture a space station where there's an error when trying to seal the door and they proceed anyway and it explodes from the pressure differential as all the air escapes out to space.
My point was precisely that no effort was needed to be usable, not that it was perfect. It's taking me longer to argue with you than making it. Again that was the point. We can endlessly make it slightly better... but then we forget why we did this in the first place, namely basic arithmetic for a dozen of people.
It's definitely science, and it definitely doesn't work that way for most people. Also, "a few years" is a long time between deciding you want fruit and getting to eat it.
> Also, "a few years" is a long time between deciding you want fruit and getting to eat it.
The best time to plant was a few years ago, the next-best time to plant is today.
This feels like a weird argument; you can decide you want to grow your own fruit today, plant that tree, and continue to buy fruit for the next few years until it's ready. This isn't rocket science. For most people it's not particularly likely that they're going to decide in the next few years that they don't like apples or lemons or whatever anymore.
Your lack of desire to either plan ahead or be patient doesn't invalidate the approach.
I wasn't making an argument against growing your own fruit, I was just helping explain why a lot of people don't do it. Personally, I am trying to grow blueberries.
The problem isn't when he might have gotten it, it's that he could have it to begin with.
The real issue is that our systems allow for one person to effectively control hundreds of billions of dollars of capital with absolutely no one to provide any consequences if they make bad decisions with that capital.
If we really are setting this up as a for-profit, publicly-traded company, how does that system of corporate governance enforce any sort of way to make sure that Zuckerberg's ego doesn't get in the way of doing things right? Basically right now it's a sole proprietorship with window dressing.
UBI feels like a natural solution to what I assume is a ubiquitous problem in the workforce: A certain percentage of people are absolutely worthless in their job, and everyone would be better off if we just paid those people to stay home.
Even if you’re competent and useful, work is an incredible sacrifice. Perhaps only 10% of workers (the most unattached and lacking in obligations) would voluntarily work. For example for parents there are only a litany of bad choices available.
If UBI is offered, why would most people suffer through their work sacrifices.
> Perhaps only 10% of workers (the most unattached and lacking in obligations) would voluntarily work.
That's not even close to true. Basically every study on UBI, everywhere, has shown that either more people work, or employment stays about the same, but in each case happiness and health go up vs the control.
Since it's very clear you haven't researched your claim whatsoever - why are you making it? Why would you say something so wrong with so much confidence?
All those studies are flawed because they are always a few years of sub-subsistence income. Of course most people rationally don't drastically change their employment in response to that - as expected per the permanent income hypothesis. A permanent, liveable UBI would be quite another beast.
If humans only work so that they can live, and wouldn't ever work if they didn't have to - then why do so many of our best inventions and advances come from people who didn't give a toss about profit?
If we have the technological means and capability to reduce employment to 10% - why wouldn't we?
Is it so impossible to imagine a world where people only work when they want to? Where the jobs that "no one would do if they weren't desperate" just pay very well instead?
Also, if you really think every UBI study is fundamentally flawed, feel free to design and run your own. Until then, maybe you could do better than waving a hand and invoking a hypothesis to try and invalidate literally every study that speaks against your claim, lol.
Lots of people enjoy working on high skill, fulfilling jobs like inventing things. Few people love working menial labour jobs. AI will probably take the former jobs but leave the latter, which will still need to be done. If everyone gets a decent UBI, how will we allocate these unfulfilling but necessary jobs?
> Also, if you really think every UBI study is fundamentally flawed, feel free to design and run your own.
All temporary studies are fundamentally flawed, because people act based on their permanent lifetime income. It's not like I can design it better, it's just not something that can easily be studied (on any reasonable time scale).
Ironic then, that both companies are in an out-of-control race to create a superintelligence.
reply