We need to stop expecting change to come from our rulers. We need to take change into our own hands.

Israeli lebensraum, not Jewish. Conflating Judaism with Israel is anti-semitic.

You can’t vote to end the genocide. Democracy isn’t real.

It kind of depends on your perspective, I wouldn’t say they profit from it monetarily - they definitely make a significant loss in raw $ from free users, but there is some amount of beneficial optics for the company, if people use it for fun/harmless activity.

I think we both want the same thing. I don’t want to tone police you or any of that shit, and I believe you’re totally justified in how you feel about AI, but I really do hope you have a read of my comments from the perspective of someone who agrees with you rather than someone who is trying to pick a fight with you.

First of all, most AI tools have some free tier. I doubt the other commenter paid a penny.

Also, just because they did it, it doesn’t mean they “required” it… I’ve laughed at cat videos before, that doesn’t mean that I require cat videos to be amused.

Fair enough, thank you for your time.

Clearly, their intent was to provide an example of a relatively harmless use of AI as a way of demonstrating to you that your position may have been a bit reductive.

Your reaction, of behaving like, lets be honest, a bit of an asshole, wasn’t really warranted.

Can you seriously not imagine how a corporation could benefit from generative AI, or are you just being obstinate and saying it’s useless because you think it’s unethical and you hope that by saying it’s useless that you can effectively manifest that?

Because there are plenty of use-cases for generative AI. None of them have to be good, or even products. Your phone machine example is a good one - it’s not a product, really, it’s taking the role of a human to fulfil some obligation, or to intentionally make it harder for people to add to the company’s support burden.

I think there are some useful applications for generative AI, but I do agree that the incarnations we have are unethical. And again, I really don’t think that simply telling people that they’re bad people for using it is going to win them over to your side.

Javascript doesn’t have strongly-typed variables

but what if number isn’t an integer, or even a number at all? This code, and the improved code shared by the other user, could cause major problems under those conditions. Really, what you would want, is to validate that number is actually an integer before performing the modulo, and if it isn’t, you want to throw an exception, because something has gone wrong.

That’s exactly what that NPM module does. And this is why it’s not a bad thing to use packages/modules for even very simple tasks, because they help to prevent us from making silly mistakes.

I think that you’re right, with the way that our society is structured, it is unethical. It’s essentially the world’s most advanced plagiarism tool.

However, being realistic, even if no private individual ever used it, it would still exist and would be used by corporations for profit maximising.

In my opinion, telling people that they’re bad people for using something which is made unethically isn’t really helpful. For example, smartphones aren’t made ethically, but the way to get that to change isn’t to change consumer habits - because we know that just doesn’t work - it’s to get organised, as a collective working class, and take action into our own hands.

Why would you even comment if you don’t want to participate in a discussion?

Internet search, e.g. Google, is now functionally almost completely useless. I use ChatGPT basically as a Google replacement.

I will still search for stuff - I use Kagi - but give up after half a dozen results if none of them are relevant and go to ChatGPT instead. Often, ChatGPT is more helpful. But sometimes it just makes a bunch of nonsense up.

ChatGPT is great for when you need to find something where you kind of know at least the vague shape of what you’re expecting and you have enough expertise to filter out any of the lies it makes up.

That’s how every progressive movement starts, until activists make them reality. If it’s a good idea, it’s a good idea - and if that’s not the way that things are done, the question stops being “is this a good idea”, and starts being “how can we implement this good idea”.

Which, presumably, you’d also restrict people from walking on :P

For the same reason that people dangerously exceed speed limits.

I think you might have picked a bad community to share your sympathies for smooth car traffic, I’m afraid.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s reasonable enough to forbid pedestrians from crossing high-speed (60+ mph) roads, but otherwise they should have full right of way over any road, and fuck the cars. They can just be patient and deal with it.