I'm not being sophisticated, I'm trying to keep you on track.
If you want to have a different argument about whether or not advertising is deserving of jail sentences, steep GDPR level fines, slaps on the wrist, or nothing, that's fine, we can have that one.
But this reply chain was about whether or not it's possible to make advertising illegal, which it is.
Lol.
You are aware that newspapers and magazines currently exist that are entirely behind paywalls right?
Both private subscriptions exist, as does government funding.
It is entirely possible to exist in a world that both has the BBC and has The Guardian...
Regulate and ban astroturfing campaigns. When corporations are caught doing so, have the penalties be similar to illegal dumping and include jail time for executives.
Then you can ban paid product placement.
Yes, we're talking about making advertising illegal, which would change advertising to be illegal, similar to how pollution is illegal.
You seem to be arguing that it would be impossible to make advertising illegal because you wouldn't pass laws to make advertising illegal....
That's not a false equivalency, that's you just insisting that advertising's not that bad and shouldn't be illegal. Nothing about your feelings on whether or not it should be illegal changes whether or not we could make it illegal.
In both situation you make it illegal for corporations to do something, and punish them with fines and criminal sentences for executives if they're caught doing so, leading to a decrease in that behaviour.
So what about the situations do you see as different that makes it a false equivalency?
Yeah, and it used to be legal to dump your industrial waste in the river, now it's not.
Laws change.
I believe when calculating tariffs they are explicitly calculating based on goods, not services, which just so happens to leave all American tech and financial companies out of the calculations.
The AI technofacists building these systems have explicitly said they've hit a wall. They're having to invest in their own power plants just to run these models. They have scores of racks of GPUs, so they're dependent upon the silicon market. AI isn't becoming "ever more capable," it's merely pushing the limits of what they have left.
While I agree that this paper sounds like a freshman thesis, I think you're betraying your own lack of knowledge here.
Because no, they havent said they've hit a wall, and while there are reasons to be skeptical of the brute force scaling approach that a lot of companies are taking, those companies are doing that because they have massive amounts of capital and scaling is an easy way to spend capital to improve the results of your model while your researchers figure out how to make better models, leaving you in a better market position when the next breakthrough or advancement happens.
The reasoning models of today like o1 and Claude 3.7 are substantially more capable than the faster models that predate them, and while you can make an argument that the resource / speed trade off isn't worth it, they're also the very first generation of models that are trying to integrate LLMs into a more logical reasoning framework.
This is on top of the broader usage of AI that is rapidly becoming more capable. The fuzzy pattern matching techniques that LLMs use have literally already revolutionized fields like Protein Structural Analysis, all the result of a single targeted DeepMind project.
The techniques behind AI allow computers to solve whole new classes of problems that werent possible before, dismissing that is just putting your head in the sand.
And yes companies are still dependent on silicon and energy, which is why they're vertically integrating and starting to try and produce that on their own. That's not a sign that they see AI as a waste of time.
The fact that they dodged questions of durability and did nothing to reassure says that they're probably identical and Nintendo just enjoys the revenue it gets from people buying more joycons.
“During a counterterrorism activity in the area of Turmus Aya, IDF soldiers identified three terrorists who hurled rocks toward the highway, thus endangering civilians driving,” the Israeli army said in a statement.
“The soldiers opened fire toward the terrorists who were endangering civilians, eliminating one terrorist and hitting two additional terrorists.”
How the fuck does anyone defend Israel when they are literally gunning down children for throwing rocks at cars.
What the honest fuck. I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could support Israel after they have committed atrocity after atrocity.
It seems really easy. You ban companies from paying for product placement.
If someone talks about it organically they can.
There's no grey area there.