Sorry, I don't understand what is the "hypothetical demand" you identified in my comment you replied to? There is real demand for AI. I use it daily for years and my usage has only been increasing as its become more competent and I've learned how to use it better. If you think that is BS and its all hypothetical, you quite simply just don't know what you are talking about.
> Your argument is akin to the Wall Street scammers cheering for themselves in the lead-up to the financial crisis. "See? We're making it possible for people to afford homes, but you ungrateful people are calling affordable housing grifting."
What argument are you referring to? Can you specifically quote what you are talking about that I said because I don't understand. Just seems like you wanted to find a way to bring this back to a previous bubble and call me a scammer simply for not being anti-AI.
[–] soraminazuki 18 hours ago
[–] weird-eye-issue 9 hours ago
[–] soraminazuki 7 hours ago
But I agree with you on one point. Voters demanded change, and it's not in favor of the enablers who think any of the above is okay. And childish behavior like trying to call people mentally ill without getting flagged will not buy you any sympathy.
[–] weird-eye-issue 7 hours ago
This isn't something US politics can just put back in the bottle and you are naive for thinking this. If it gets heavily regulated in the US it won't be long before everyone is just using Chinese models. And then what? Will we ban Chinese models? That strategy and approach didn't work so well with semiconductors back in the day.
Also I didn't bring up mental illness first, hope you're doing fine.
[–] soraminazuki 6 hours ago
Why is every accusation a confession with you people? I clarified multiple times what the issue is, and every single time you've either ignored, denied, or downplayed. You pretend that the people being robbed of resources are just "resisting change," and are now even calling us "literal bots." If that's how you view people, no wonder you think it's "bad faith" to oppose the multi-trillion dollar levels of exploitation that's going on.
> Also I didn't bring up mental illness first
What I said was that unempathetic people are driving others mad. Very disingenuous of you to frame that as me inviting you to call me mentally ill. You have nothing but your own free will to blame for making that insult, and a responsible adult owns their decisions.
All of this highlights the lack of empathy even further.
> hope you're doing fine.
And you did it again. Calling people ill in a sarcastic way is your idea of a "real discussion"? No, that's petty and childish.
[–] weird-eye-issue 4 hours ago
I asked you very specific questions because I genuinely was trying to understand what points you were making and what argument you thought I was trying to make and you never addressed those very specific questions. If I ask you specific questions and then you completely ignore them that isn't really going to lead to a productive conversation. You are just letting emotion control you and you are justifying it by assuming that you are more empathetic than me which frankly isn't even relevant.
Another issue that makes having a discussion with you impossible is that you keep using the plural form of words like "you people" and "are now even calling us...". I am a singular person talking to you another singular person. Stop trying to put myself and yourself into buckets and extrapolate this conversation into things I never said just because people that you might think are similar to me have said in the past. I was calling you a literal bot for bringing up politics out of nowhere. I'm not talking about "you people" or anyone else, or any other situation, I'm only talking about you in that specific context. Stop extrapolating everything and putting words in my mouth. It's exhausting and even trying to have a conversation with you is simply not happening so I'm not going to reply further.
[–] soraminazuki 2 hours ago
> Sorry, I don't understand what is the "hypothetical demand" you identified in my comment you replied to? ... If you think that is BS and its all hypothetical, you quite simply just don't know what you are talking about.
"You quite simply just don't know what you are talking about" is not a question. It's denial of a very real issue. It's no secret that Anthropic and co. are currently depriving others of resources based on speculative future demand. It's not current demand that's already being served. It's future demand. And they're threatening human extinction if they don't have their way. How much imaginary future demand justifies such deprivation? At that point, who is all of this even for?
Or by "question," are you referring to this:
> Just seems like you wanted to find a way to bring this back to a previous bubble and call me a scammer simply for not being anti-AI.
The exact same straw man rephrased, also not a question.
> You are just letting emotion control you
Says the person repeatedly calling people mental.
> I was calling you a literal bot for bringing up politics out of nowhere
The insane amount of resources being allocated to LLM datacenters was one of the deciding factors in the outcome of the election. People wanted change, the precise thing you accused me of being against. You invited that discussion.
Furthermore, you call me a "bot" for bringing up this point, saying it's "irrelevant." Calling that dismissal of human suffering for what it is isn't "extrapolation."
I clarified what the grift is in every single one of my replies, and you refuse to even acknowledge the issue of resource deprivation and instead made it about being pro-progress or anti-progress. Don't pretend like that's a good-faith discussion.