For all these former-AI-booster takes and realizations about the nightmare they’ve ushered in, I’ve yet to see anyone really comprehend why this is happening and why it won’t stop. It isnt just “shareholders like AI.”

This is the final bet. If one of these companies figures it out, they genuinely believe it’ll be the end of workers, the end of labor cost, and the dawn of an era of unlimited profit. They believe that. I mean what’s far more likely is that it rapidly gets hooked into the MIC and we get actual Skynet kicking off the Apocalypse. Or maybe just the complete annihilation of the economy as we all get a global experiment in what it looks like when “consumers” don’t exist anymore and everything is 100% supply side. But not one of these “rational actors” can bear the thought that they’d miss out on a bet with an infinite possible payout, therefore any amount must he wagered.

I completely agree. I’ve been sharing some art I’m doing for inktober, but only because it’s doodles for practice, and could only make ai art worse for it’s inclusion.

But my writing (on my personal website) or my serious art works or my persona open source code projects? Yeah, I have lost all enthusiasm to share them online. If people want to see my work, I’ll send it to them directly.

I think the era of free and open sharing on the Internet is dead, which does sadden me. I think we’re ultimately moving to a new dark age, the Dark Net Age, where all communication and sharing will go into various private chats and sites, where people can be vetted and held accountable.

Well people that care, which will end up being like the early internet: smart kids, embattled minorities, and crotchety, paranoid old folks. All the people too busy or ignorant to care are already deep into the algorithmic treadmills of X and TikTok and I don’t think they’re ever coming out.

Damn, it’s almost like recentralizing the internet under 5 (USA) companies’ was stupid and dangerous.

Yeah, that one’s always bothered me too. I think the difference in meaning from colloquial “implication” and logical “material implication” are also involved in the raven paradox.

So the statement that “all ravens are black” can be taken as “if RAVEN then BLACK”. Is this statement true? If you see a black raven then trivially yes, if you see a white raven then trivially false (via counter example).

However if you see a non-raven, it is evidence for the truth of the statement because it doesn’t go against it: not-ravens being black-or-not-black both reduce the universe of possible objects without proving not-black-ravens exist.

Or something like that, I think it’s stupid too. Trinary logic can adopt a more sensible (IMHO) definition of implication that makes A being false always lead to the third value (usually defined as indeterminate or neither-true-nor-false).

I truly have no idea and wish I did, haha. It looks like a shorthand for which operation is being followed, maybe like a group theory thing, but I really don’t know.

That would be the symbol\operation called TRUE or TOP or “tautology” which is always true. They’re actually missing quite a few of the weirder ops, including implication and biconditional\iff\if-and-only-if. (Edit: Actually I think XNOR is also the biconditional. I guess pretend like I said “material implication” and “reverse implication”. Fricken booleans man!)