Are we at the stage yet where a super-strong model that needs oodles of safety protections to stop it outright hacking you is strictly worse for day-to-day tasks than a much cheaper model that's simply not competent enough to be dangerous?

Meta is relentlessly obsessed with metrics. Want to launch something? Show the metrics. What to show impact and value? If there's not a metric for it, it doesn't exist. It's a way to say you are being as objective as possible while also being able to avoid the utterly obvious when it suits you, which is frequently.

Curious that technology will send us back to the world of Michelangelo and the Medici and so on. No more professional artists funded broadly, just pets of the rich.

That's not necessarily true. Patreon, Twitch, and Onlyfans all reproduce the patronage relationship at microscale. Instead of a commissioned sculpture you might get a shout-out on chat, but the cost to you was also much cheaper.

In my corner of the Faang world it's been 20 years since that sort of brain teaser was asked. We switched to coding problems that require dynamic programming!

And a husband who works and his wife who doesn't, should she get a vote? The commentators here are responding exactly to the spirit of what was said, there's no confusion on what's really being implied here. Namely, the destruction of the entire basis of democracy, which is one person one vote.

Another way to express the general disgust: that proposal is saying, "we're going to take away your power, but we'll still look after you, pinky promise!"

I've already heard discussions in the last year that married women shouldn't vote. Their husbands would cast two votes. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22household+voting%22

> the entire basis of democracy, which is one person one vote

This is a relatively recent innovation; most democracies throughout history have not had this property, so it's hardly the "entire basis" of the concept.

It is, however, an interesting and possibly worth goal. The obvious problem (which has been noted by many previously) is that when the people making the decisions are not the ones paying for it the system is unstable (e.g. "three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner", also "eventually you run out of other people's money").

This is a serious issue and possibly the biggest present threat to our current system. It's worth considering various possible solutions and thinking about what might work and what would likely lead to ruin.

If discussing these issue triggers "disgust" you may want to question if you are actually thinking about what is being said or just reacting emotionally.

The billionaires are the sheep, and people with less than $100k in annual income are the wolves in this contrived scenario?

> This is a serious issue and possibly the biggest present threat to our current system

Is it?

I don't know why you're being downvoted, gross is exactly the word for it.

I tend to think the risk is the point. It's an in-group marker, getting very sick every so often for no good reason shows commitment. Which of course makes it doubly pointless as a suggestion to the general public, but the fact that it's a bad idea doesn't mean that for the in-group it's a bad idea. (I mean, it _is_ a bad idea, you understand though.)

Kinda want to push back on that. It's not like engineers are separate from operations, not really. A lot of operations is just what engineers have been socialised to do.

I used to read the New York Times on my kindle. It was great: delivered each morning, no waste paper by the afternoon, a simple subscription, etc. I was on my 4th kindle at least, which says more about the use I got out of them than their endurance. And then the service disappeared for reasons I never really understood.