I mean... Do you really think they care? The optics are dogshit for anyone with a brain but they keep making it worse anyway. I have zero doubts that they care about making a pattern or people noticing a pattern. They haven't cared one iota for how stupidly and nakedly transparent anything else they have done is.
That sounds like my headcanon sequel to Sneakers where Bishop (Robert Redford) uses his newfound anonymity to start over in a small town where he accidentally ends up the high school basketball coach to a bunch of skinny nerds. They make it to the state championships through a combination of phone phreaking and social engineering.
Yeah, imagine that, being so rich that you can do dumb shit with your friends (who are all celebrities) and that dumb shit somehow prints even more money being fun.
Gee, I wonder if I could have fun doing that? Never having to worry about things like finances and doing every stupid thought that ever came to me without real consequence?
I mean, like, no shit they had fun.
"Those young women were my property!" vibes.
He just keeps digging the hole deeper... for anyone with a brain.
Unpopular Opinion: Billy Madison was his first and last good comedy movie.
Sure, Jan.
Yarrrr mateys, private torrent trackers don't have an age-gate!
There's definitely a handful of private porn torrent trackers.
Then you don't have to hit an age gate anymore because it's safely stored on your own hard drives.
Oh good, so that means we can just replace the C-suite with LLMs then, right? Right?
An AI won't need a Golden Parachute when they inevitably fuck it all up.
Interesting talk but the number of times he completely dismisses the entire field of linguistics kind of makes me think he's being disingenuous about his familiarity with it.
For one, I think he is dismissing holotes, the concept of "wholeness." That when you cut something apart to it's individual parts, you lose something about the bigger picture. This deconstruction of language misses the larger picture of the human body as a whole, and how every part of us, from our assemblage of organs down to our DNA, impact how we interact with and understand the world. He may have a great definition of understanding but it still sounds (to me) like it's potentially missing aspects of human/animal biologically based understanding.
For example, I have cancer, and about six months before I was diagnosed, I had begun to get more chronically depressed than usual. I felt hopeless and I didn't know why. Surprisingly, that's actually a symptom of my cancer. What understanding did I have that changed how I felt inside and how I understood the things around me? Suddenly I felt different about words and ideas, but nothing had changed externally, something had change internally. The connections in my neural network had adjusted, the feelings and associations with words and ideas was different, but I hadn't done anything to make that adjustment. No learning or understanding had happened. I had a mutation in my DNA that made that adjustment for me.
Further, I think he's deeply misunderstanding (possibly intentionally?) what linguists like Chomsky are saying when they say humans are born with language. They mean that we are born with a genetic blueprint to understand language. Just like animals are born with a genetic blueprint to do things they were never trained to do. Many animals are born and almost immediately stand up to walk. This is the same principle. There are innate biologically ingrained understandings that help us along the path to understanding. It does not mean we are born understanding language as much as we are born with the building blocks of understanding the physical world in which we exist.
Anyway, interesting talk, but I immediately am skeptical of anyone who wholly dismisses an entire field of thought so casually.
For what it's worth, I didn't downvote you and I'm sorry people are doing so.
More likely that this will just kill the x86 market and ARM will fully take over because of those chips' reduced power consumption in comparison.