• 9 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2025

help-circle
  • I’m not certain, but it could be that as the cost goes down, they keep bringing out more powerful models, so the cost per query stays constant.

    If this is accurate, their need to compete with each other to have “the best” AI is creating a prisoner’s dilemma where everyone loses because the individually-optimal choice is worse than if they all agreed that today’s AI is good enough and concentrated on affordability and minimising energy/water usage instead.






  • I don’t love that kind of philanthropy either. But it’s not the billionaires’ fault that that’s the system we live in. So when they do do charitable giving, I’m happy to give them the credit for it.

    I see Mr Beast’s problem (in this respect) as twofold.

    First, as you said, it was often a business expense. In fact on many occasions, it felt really gross and exploitative in the moment, like a sort of poverty porn.

    And second, is the fact that even his more legitimate “charitable” raising feels very…Effective Altruism–coded. The idea that we can Technology our way into Saving Humanity. Like the Project Seas (or whatever it was called) where he organised a bunch of YouTubers into helping him raise a significant amount of money for a project that would supposedly use some fancy gadgets to clean up huge amounts of plastic waste in the ocean. Except that the company behind this had no interest in consulting with actual experts, and it turns out that their product simply does not work. It reminds me a little of that time Elon “pedo guy” Musk tried to insert himself into a cave rescue operation with a fancy submarine, and got butthurt when he was told “actually that won’t help us.” It also does nothing about reducing waste in the first place, which is by far the more important work.







  • Then he, probably rightly criticises Mather for pushing too hard, then failing, for a pyrrhic victory in a political fight on the job

    Does he? I don’t really read it as that at all. I read it as him suggesting Chandler-Mather was let down by the Greens as a whole, because while he took a strong stance on an important issue, the Greens as a whole, particularly in other states (claims Jono), were much softer on that issue in particular.

    I think the fact is that the Greens can never win with a small-target, modest reform approach. The right-wing media in this country will always ensure they are perceived as extremist, and any attempt to appear otherwise will simply fail to meaningfully attract the target audience while alienating people who do want to see more radical change. So to win power they need to take strong stances that make people excited to vote for them.




  • Zagorath@quokk.autoAustralia@aussie.zoneno pride in genocide
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It was literally his mission to find land to steal and place the natives under British rule

    Actually, it ends up looking even worse for Cook. His instructions specifically said:

    You are also with the Consent of the Natives to take Possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain: Or: if you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his Majesty by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions, as first discoverers and possessors.

    So either he ignored the Crown’s instructions to get “consent”, or he (and not later colonists) is the original source of claims of terra nullius.




  • Zagorath@quokk.auto Memes of Production@quokk.auip freely
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m gonna say, I don’t like the use of LLMs to replace real artists, but IP law is not an appropriate vehicle to stop it happening. AIs trained on pirated material should face the consequences for that, but scraping publicly available (not the same as public domain) material is ethically no different to human artists taking inspiration from that same material. It’s the output that needs to be restricted, not the input.









  • Damn, this is mega disappointing. I’ve moved so my local MP is no longer Greens, but I haven’t updated my address on the electoral roll so I might write to her, and to the Greens Senators, to express my disappointment at this.

    I’ll also just re-share here the text of a fantastic Facebook post that came out a week ago, before Albo capitulated:

    A Royal Commission is for systemic, nationwide failure not a single criminal act like the Bondi Shooting

    Australia only uses Royal Commissions when normal oversight has completely failed, causing widespread harm over years not localised to one region, city or state.

    Examples:

    • Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

      • Most expensive ever (~$535 million)
      • Decades of abuse across churches, schools, state institutions
    • Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

      • ~$300–350 million
      • Widespread abuse and neglect across care, health, justice, NDIS
    • Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety
      – ~$110–120 million
      – System found to be unsafe, neglectful, and failing nationally

    • Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme
      – ~$60 million
      – An unlawful government scheme that harmed hundreds of thousands

    The Bondi attack was a single act of violence by an individual.

    It is already subject to:

    • Police investigation
    • Coroner’s inquest
    • Independent reviews

    Unless evidence shows repeated ignored warnings, systemic government failure, or nationwide negligence, a Royal Commission is not justified.

    Calling one without proof of systemic failure is political theatre, wastes public money, and retraumatises families.

    Facts first. Evidence first. Accountability where it belongs.


  • I highly doubt they’d do it this blatantly if they were not confident this is an easy sell

    I mean, I would have agreed with you, except we’ve also just recently seen even more blatant and indefensible union-busting from Rockstar in the UK, another country with good labour laws, and another country with more than adequate legal resources.

    I think you’re probably right that Ubisoft has sufficient legal cover to win this case, but that’s because of the merits of this case, not because a big company from a country with good laws could never do something stupidly illegal.