Robert Caro disagrees. Power does not corrupt, it reveals. If you somehow became a billionaire, you’d be able to do whatever you wanted, which means we’d be able to see what you wanted to do. If you start acting evil once you get money, it means you were evil but unable to act on it until you had money.

Specifically about Amazon, Bezos made it because he wanted to cash in on the early internet with his own startup, leaving a Wall Street firm to do so. And, yes, we was a dick to his only employee, which is why the man quit after only 5 years.

They made one comment. It’s a bit early to start drawing conclusions.

If you want an alternative, how about not giving it all to anyone? How about judging the company on their values and practices rather than their size?

You hit a false dichotomy. “Not your allies” does not automatically mean “class traitors”. They might be neutral.

Remember: Just because a business is small doesn’t mean it’s automatically better. For example, if Bezos ran a corner shop with only three employees, he’d still try and stop them from taking toilet breaks.

I think the brain injury has him a little confused. He spent 18 days with a 6ft Mustang full of testosterone called Jesús, and it was heavenly.

If that is in fact how the system in question works.

We know that’s how the system works by the fact…

We know how THIS system works - but…

They cast doubt, I point out proof, they deflect to other systems they might be right about. Sounds like they moved the goalposts to me. I don’t need to know which system it is to know it does what we can see it do.

Why would they request to retexture the stone tiles at the top to have stronger speckles? That’s not just “we turned up the contrast”, cause the rest of the image has lower contrast.

We aren’t talking about other systems. Don’t move the goalposts.

We know that’s how the system works by the fact that every single person in the image looks different.

It is worth remembering that AI replaces the ENTIRE image, even if you ask it to change only one thing. That’s why every single person in the image looks different.

A kid napping, you mean

“Dog breeds? I sure hope it does” -Kash, on all fours

Oh, no, they both have very different ideas of what to do to a dog.

They like dogs because the oldest ones are only 15.

It’s possible your coworkers are the ones dealing with those issues, and you just never notice.

They said “perfectly”, not “90%”. You’re trying to move the goalposts.

all of your claims have so many asterisks attached that they’re essentially pointless

No they don’t, but say whatever you need to ignore me. That’s definitely what someone arguing in good faith would do.

internet access has been shown to have all the same negative effects

Citation needed.

it’s a useful technology

Quite the opposite, actually. It causes enormous problems and has no benefits that aren’t better served by existing technologies that lack those problems.

Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for. And most tools aren’t actively detrimental to the user to the point of proven intelligence drops, lawsuits and environmental destruction. Also, the enemy charges you money to use it.

The only person who benefits from AI is the person selling it. So why are you trying to defend it?

“If you want to serve your country, you should enlist in the military.”
“Actually, I’m happy to abandon my country so I can go around killing civilians, breaking the law and causing chaos for my own personal gratification.”
“…You should enlist in the military twice.”

I’m done arguing against the single argument you’ve made time and time and time again. For my rebuttal, simply look four comments up from this one. Goodbye.