Gsus4

Oh yes, it's great for that. My google-fu was never good enough to "find the name of this thing that does this, but only when in this circumstance"

Haha, definitely, it's infuriating and scary. But it also depends on what you are watching for. If you are watching TV, you do it for convenience or entertainment. LLMs have the potential to be much more than that, but unless a very open and accessible ecosystem is created for them, they are going to be whatever our tech overlords decide they want them to be in their boardrooms to milk us.

Yea, try talking to chatgpt about things that you really know in detail about. It will fail to show you the hidden, niche things (unless you mention them yourself), it will make lots of stuff up that you would not pick up on otherwise (and once you point it out, the bloody thing will "I knew that" you, sometimes even if you are wrong) and it is very shallow in its details. Sometimes, it just repeats your question back to you as a well-written essay. And that's fine...it is still a miracle that it is able to be as reliable and entertaining as some random bullshitter you talk to in a bar, it's good for brainstorming too.

That reminds me of a funny story from Encyclopedia Geopolitica where an expert in money laundering describes bitcoin around 2016 as being an el-dorado for financial forensics. It was so good at tracking funds that there was a bitcoin wallet address on a terrorism website on the deep web and they could see the donations arrive in real time and catch a pile of 'em. Maybe now they are more cautious and use more mixing layers, but it is still a terrible use case for that if you don't control transaction entry and exit nodes: the ledger is public and every transaction is traceable.

There are two possibilities: railway/dotcom bubble or monorail/bitcoin bubble ...and I'm not sure which one it is going to be yet. In the first case, a lot of people lose their investment, because they got too greedy and believed in huge returns...but the infrastructure remains and there is a net good to society and time spent specializing in it is worth it afterwards. The second, not so much, it is just a hype cycle with almost nothing of use left once it is gone and a lot of wasted time. I'm leaning towards the first, but if they don't find a way to bring energy costs down, it might end up in the monorail/bitcoin scenario...maybe 10% chance.

The people still back on the ~~matrix~~ major platforms still do things that affect you indirectly like voting, buying things that shape everyone's market, or having their cognitive biases explored, listed and exploited in ways that yours may also be by pr firms.

Nothing beats learning it from LISP :)

How good for us enlightned ones who escaped the matrix. I guess the internet won't die for us :/ problem solved.

if these platforms are not ~~reigned~~ (might as well spell it like that given their regning attitude) reined in, the internet will die anyway...just a few walled fiefdoms that will dominate all markets and public spheres in the world.

Mind the gap: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/26620/why-do-public-toilets-in-the-us-have-large-gaps-no-privacy#26625 I care more about this than who's inside the WC :$

One is run by a psycho, the other by a guy who needs to get off the ketamine and find his big boy pants.

Now seriously: FB is more insidious in its tracking and targeted profiling (lawful evil). Twitter is just negligent and deliberately letting the crazies roam free (chaotic evil).

I see your angle now, I don't think it would need to be more mass surveillance than it already is, but understand why enthusiasm for these hearings could be damped by that waryness.