"And that's why all trips require four jumps, regardless of length. And why the stars always appear as linear 'streaks' during transit; you're not going infinitely fast; you're just looking at them 'from the wrong angle.' "
Actually, there *are* well known ways to dramatically improve your products, your services, the quality of them, reduce the costs to provide them, improve your work environment, etc.
And these ways are well known. Tried and tested. And proven to work.
But none of them is as "sexy" or easy to sell as the *con games* that are dominating the industry today.
Actual real progress and improvement is *hard work*. But who's willing to do that, these days?!?!?
The part about consent violation that really surprised me was corporations accepting that their operating system and application vendors can just force advertising on all their employees, without corporate or employee consent.
I raised the issue to corporate security at one point, as M$ Windoze kept advertising *games* to corporate employees on corporate computers, disregarding severe corporate policies forbidding anyone from using such games. But I could not get anyone to "care."
After a "too big to fail" company is nationalized, then it's *essential services* should be split up. And everything else put on "controlled shut down."
I like the analogy of Generative AI to asbestos — a toxic problem that must be removed at great expense at a later date.
But I have to point out that asbestos was *actually quite useful* and used, all the way back to the stone age — for its fireproof fibrous properties. We only learned of the health impacts relatively recently.
Generative AI, while quite the parlor trick, and good for impressive demos (when you overlook the obvious problems), has only ever shown quite limited value.
Generative AI models, with reasonable human prompting, have been producing results that humans have and would consider copyright infringing, if humans had produced those or similar results. Since the prompts themselves do not appear to be copyright infringing in any way, I think we'd have to conclude that the operation of the models is in violation.
And even if the work is not a "copy," it's designed to compete with the original authors -- a violation in itself.
One thing noticeably missing is that one critical tiny block that was supporting the whole thing, labeled “a project some random person in Nebraska has been thanklessly maintaining since 2003”.