How do you confirm the election results itself though, when the election purveyors can't be trusted? Statistical polling has been a third-party check on elections for a century.
They don't really check anything, do they? When there is a discrepancy between official results and polling, the general response was that the polling missed something, not that the official results were wrong.
You're probably thinking about pre-election polls. Those are frequently off by a few percentage points even if they took great care to take a large representative sample of the population because it's difficult to predict turnout. However, there's one opportunity to get a representative sample of voters: by conducting an exit poll right after they voted. If exit polls show a large discrepancy from actual results, it's usually seen as an indicator of fraud.
Well that seems pretty shaky. You're saying that in order to cast doubt on an election, I don't need to actually target the election itself? I can just generate a bunch of disinformation in an unregulated, less-scrutinized, adjacent channel?
To answer your question, you volunteer locally so that you're involved in the process, or you encourage somebody that you trust to do so, or somebody they trust, etc... You validate it by doing it validly.
Well in the books the nano particles come into your home and show you dream virtual realities of your dead relatives and then offer to transform your mentation into some god like entity in the now ubiquitous compute stratum.
I see no evidence that you're committed to it getting better over time. Tell me again in a year or two when something you've made has actually gotten usable. Until then, build your credibility by making something good, not just making a sloppy copy.
I had a pirated copy of Below The Root as a kid on my Apple IIc... except the small town copy network had made a bad copy. So it'd only play some of the time if i was lucky. I'm going to dive into this
Well we've been doing exactly this for 200 years! IMO the use of fossil fuels for manufacturing novelty products that go straight-to-landfill, and daily suburban commuting to bullshit jobs, and diverting water to inhabit cities in inhospitable deserts, is a greater cause of our 'slow genocide' than AI will be. So why would we stop now, when we couldn't be bothered to even slow down before? (Annual carbon emissions aren't even trending downward, much less getting to net negative!)
So while I also foresee and lament humanity's self-genocide, it seems a bit hypocritical to get salty about AI "automation" while broadly accepting our industrial civilization's trajectory.
> Annual carbon emissions aren't even trending downward, much less getting to net negative!
They were trending downward in the US. AI usage in the US did change that single-handedly. I understand carbon emissions are a global problem but since they are subject to political remedies, the solution to the global problem is solving the same problem within each political jurisdiction.
Yawn, I've used none of these except Linux and I would expect that their Linux contributions have been self-serving and not made it better for regular users like me.
You also use your phone that requires cobalt mined by child labor, wear clothes made by slave labor in countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh etc, so what's your point? The world is not black and white.
Original comment you responded to said "> [Meta] have arguably contributed nothing to society for over a decade" and you responded with a list of tech that is supposed to indicate their contribution. I'm not impressed. I'm also not impressed by fast fashion and child labor phones. Big Tech has been a scourge and 20% less web traffic because of zstd does not absolve them.
We were lucky for decades to get paid to do what we enjoy. Virtually no other field gets this. Maybe artists but note that very few artists make even a living from their work. So yes it sucks but as they say, "don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened".
"Gathering mental capacity to simply know what next I need to do" is not a waste. That is work. In fact it is the most important work with LLMs. If you spend all day in a hammock dreaming up what next needs to be done (and it's the right stuff), and then type a few sentences into the LLM to generate it overnight, that is better time spent working than spending all day cranking out 20 PRs that are of mid-low value.
Yeah, if you're wandering in random directions all day long (20 PRs a day is rarely working towards a clear goal) then you're not going to get far. Taking some time to figure out where you're headed is probably way more beneficial in the long term. And it's also something LLMs suck at, they interpolate extremely well but haven't got a clue what's next.
reply