Yeah, it seems simple

Then companies start quibbling over what software is required for the system to function, so much that the courts give up trying to fight them

Simple: Anything required for the hardware to function must be open source and user replaceable (no signed firmware, or at least a way to turn off signatures or load your own keys).

The problem is that every business seems to be run by fuckheads who would respond to this by changing their business model to "Televisions as a Service"

Every TV would become a rental instead of a product you can buy

Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't see any way to be optimistic anymore. Every company now seems to behave like landlords instead of producers

Yes, but if it is "TVs as a service" then it completely changes the game. We can force them to replace the TV when it dies. Or make them take the TV back when we stop the service. Repairability would be their problem, not ours.

This could arguably be a win for the environment.

Of course, many people would still want to own their products, so that would be a market opportunity then.

Only on this fucking website would I say something as full of shit as "TV as a service" and find some asshole thinking it sounds like a great idea

I give up. Go fuck yourselves Hacker News I'm done with this anti-human hellhole

it’s one person don’t have a conniption

It’s not just TVs, General Motors wants to be a “service” too removing connectivity like CarPlay/Android auto to force you to use a car App Store, and BMW with their subscription heated seats. Recurring revenue at all costs!!

> Why can they answer your questions about a book but the robot can't

Robots simply do not deserve the same consideration and the same rights that humans have

It's really that easy. Humans deserve more rights than inanimate objects

Luckily we do not live in an allow-list based society where we need to ask permission for every new thing we invent. The burden is on someone to show that robot answers book questions is somehow bad, to justify outlawing it. And that has not been shown. Bringing up the ontology of humans having human rights has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

You absolutely can use VBA to invent this information out of nothing just like AI does half the fucking time

> we achieved AGI in either 2017 or 2022

Even if this is true, which I disagree with, it simply creates a new bar: AGCI. Artificial Generally Correct Intelligence

Because Right now it is more like Randomly correct

to be fair we accept imperfection as some natural trait of life, to err, human

Kind of like humans.

The reason we made systems on computers is so they would not be falliable like humans would be.

No it isn't, it's because they are useful tools for doing a lot of calculations quickly.

accurate calculations, quickly

If they did calculations as sloppily as AI currently produces information, they would not be as useful

A stochastically correct oracle just requires a little more care units use, that’s all.

> I still wonder why humans getting things wrong is a problem, but LLMs getting more things more wrong more often than humans never is

Some people hate humanity so much that they cannot wait to replace us all with AI so they never have to interact with another human ever again

That's honestly the only reason I can think that they are so biased toward AI

I find this take so strange, do you find no value in AI?

I don’t even want AI to replace us, but it’s a great tool with many use cases.

I weigh the economic value against the lives I believe is going to ruin and the damage I believe is going to do to society and the future of the human race and I do not find value there. I find ruin

There might be a way for us to adopt AI as a tool without bringing ruin to many people, but I don't believe that is the goal of anyone building AI.

As it stands, I don't believe there is anything ethical about AI in it's current form. So from that perspective, I vehemently deny there is any value in it

At one point in history, people like you were asking why anyone could be anti-slavery. After all, it was impossible to deny the economic value of slaves.

Why is AI unethical in its current form and what would make it ethical for you?

At this point I don't think even Sam Altman believes AI to be ethical, as much as he would like to believe such thing.

Not anymore. Just like every other business on the planet it is being run by people focused solely on wealth extraction now

Dark Souls on PC rather famously was locked at some low resolution no matter what you did in the settings, among other problems that the PC port had. There was a hack program called DSFix that did a bunch of work to make it playable in a reasonable way on PC

You definitely haven't been paying attention to blockbusters and TV shows over the past decade or so have you?

They have become remarkably sexless, practically no titillation to be found anywhere

Probably depends on how one defines "blockbuster"...

Yes, the highest-grossing movies (Marvel, etc) tend to be mostly sexless (aside from tight-fitting costumes and dirty jokes).

But, there are always plenty of critically acclaimed Hollywood movies with lots of sex. Poor Things being a recent example.

> Probably depends on how one defines "blockbuster"..

Movies that everyone sees that penetrate the public consciousness

> there are always plenty of critically acclaimed Hollywood movies

Movies that only critics see or care about are not blockbusters

I have different netflix recommendations then you, apparently.

I was going to say that. Also other US stuff I see: a lot of pointless sex and nudity.

<cough> Game of Thrones... the hollywood idea of a "mature" series.