"Our AIs"?
The AI models belong to giant corporations (Google, Microsoft) or are receiving millions of dollars serving giant corporations. How are they yours?
A better solution is passing laws on wage transparency. For most jobs, the company has a range in mind. Make them post that range in the job offer itself. Short of robust labor unions bargaining for better wages, transparency in the job posting is the next best thing.
I don't buy it.
Executives worry about labor costs, ARR, RoI, etc. The grandest promises of AI are that executives will make a lot more money with a lot fewer employees. Of course they are pushing it!
ICs worry about doing their job (either doing it well because they care about their craft, or doing it good enough because they need to pay bills). AI doesn't really promise them anything. Maybe they automate some of their tasks away, but that just means they will take on more tasks. For practically any IC, there is no increase in wealth nor reduction in labor time. There is only a new quiet lingering threat that they might be laid off if an executive determines they're not needed anymore.
It's amazing Cuba has lasted so long, despite being utterly hated by their neighbor, the most powerful country in the world.
Both capitalism and communism really only "work" when many countries work together. Cuba is committed to the communist project despite the USA all but suffocating the country through trade embargoes. The relationship between Cuba and the USSR was always complicated, but with the fall of the USSR, the communist network went to shambles.
It will be interesting to see how Cuba's future plays out as China grows in power and influence. IMO, Cuba just has to keep the candle burning. China and Cuba do have a positive relationship today, and I can only assume that the threat of China is a counterweight to any rash ideas the current USA administration might have in mind for Cuba.
Fun fact: Today, we tend use the term "first world" as a synonym for developed nations that are fairly wealthy, and "third world" for developing nations that are poor. But did you know there was a "second world"? It was the USSR and those aligned with it. The first world was the USA and its allies during the Cold War. The third world was basically everyone not aligned with either USA nor USSR.
Cuba's doctors and medical research is helping struggling countries live to see another day. They punch way above their weight. Incredible really, given they are a small island nation, living under the shadow of the biggest, most advanced military in the world, and it hates them.
I think the headline is valid. I'm of course aware of click-bait or otherwise misleading headlines, but in this case I think it is good. It gets right to the point it wants to make. For additional context, a reader is expected to read the article. I don't know how much information a single headline can reasonably be expected to bear.
If you are intending to spark a discussion on what is or is not justified:
1. I think it is proper for someone who shoots a person to receive stiff legal penalties, as seems to be happening here.
2. I think it is proper for accomplices of a murderer to bear some legal penalties, and the details depend a lot on the circumstances of the specific case.
3. I think it is entirely possible, that someone could be wearing black clothes (a common protest tactic) and otherwise activley involved in the protest without being an accomplice to an attempted murderer.
The Trump administration has an idealogical agenda against whoever they call the "far-left."
The concern of the article, and the concern I also share, is that they may use this case to make people who fall in category 3 (protesters they don't like, basically), to be considered category 2. And the really troubling part is that there may not even need to be a category 1!
Protesters in black clothes = domestic terrorists. That's the potential outcome that's very troubling. And also why I think the headline is pretty good.
Kind of. But the outcomes likely do not benefit the masses. People "accessing AI labor" is just a race to the bottom. Maybe some new tools get made or small businesses get off the ground, but ultimately this "AI labor" is a machine that is owned by capitalists. They dictate its use, and they will give or deny people access to the machine as it benefits them. Maybe they get the masses dependent on AI tools that are currently either free or underpriced, as alternatives to AI wither away unable to compete on cost, then the prices are raised or the product enshittified. Or maybe AI will be massively useful to the surveillance state and data brokers. Maybe AI will simply replace a large percentage of human labor in large corporations, leading to mass unemployment.
I don't fault anyone for trying to find opportunities to provide for themselves and loved ones in this moment by using AI to make a thing. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the AI labor is yours. The capitalists own it, not us.
As someone who has leaned fully into AI tooling this resonates. The current environment is an oligopoly so I'm learning how to leverage someone else's tool. However, in this way, I don't think LLMs are a radical departure from any proprietary other tool (e.g. Photoshop).
Indeed. Do you know how many small consultancies are out there which are "Microsoft shops"? An individual could become a millionaire by founding their own and delivering value for a few high-roller clients.
Nobody says there's no money to make anymore. But the space for that is limited, no matter how many millions hustle, there's only 100 spots in the top 100.
what makes you think that's actually possible? maybe if you really had the connections and sales experience etc...
but also, if that were possible, then why wouldn't prices go down? why would the value of such labor stay so high if the same thing can be done by other individuals?
I saw it happen more back in the day compared to now. Point being, nobody batted an eyelash at being entirely dependent on some company's proprietary tech. It was how money was made in the business.
Software development was a race to the bottom for the majority of developers aside from the major tech companies for a decade. I’m seeing companies on the enterprise/corp dev side - where most developers work - stagnate for a decade and not keep up with inflation in tier 2 cities - again where most developers work.
A Federal intervention is generally not called for unless a State pointedly does not get with some Federal mandate or another. See desegregation in the South for another notable historic example.
Of the Little Rock 9 in Arkansas:
>When integration began on September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive order 10730,[18] which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and 1,000 soldiers from the US Army and ordered them to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students. The Arkansas National Guard would escort these nine black children inside the school as it became the students' daily routine that year.
Ideally though, this type of intervention should be exceedingly rare or reserved for the most egregious cases. Unfortunately, the present administration sees only the mechanism, and is motivated more by pettiness than any real commitment to Statecraft.
reply