Why’d they put the quotation marks around “bad things” instead of “benefits of ai?”

Oh no

I’ve heard that there are actually people who dislike all music, but I’ve never met one. Sounds sad tho

… I guess a lot of my friends are also musicians, so my anecdotal experience might not be “average” in that department

In that case I think you might be an outlier

I have only anecdotal evidence to offer, but it is the opposite of your annecdotal experience. I have two large friend groups in two different locations.

In one of these groups there are zero AI fanatics, and about 2 or 3 who use it casually without thinking about it. This group is about 30-40 people.

In the other group I’m in has no one who uses it casually, but there are 2 AI fanatics (who also both work in the AI industry). This group is closer to 20 people total.

At my work there are about 30 employees, one of whom was a former fanatic, but is now just a casual user after realizing he was being lied to about AIs capabilities.

I’m just about middle aged tho, so I suppose there would likely be different saturation levels in different age groups.

Ok, that’s not what I thought you were saying, that makes sense

I’d think that the people who don’t care about music are not consuming much of it tho

I don’t think you understand what “lowest common denominator” means

Anyone who claims to enjoy music while simultaneously listening to AI slop bullshit is actually an idiot, and they are not better than the “average” person.

I definitely noticed how you edited your comment so you wouldn’t have to admit that you were wrong.

Also, don’t try to put words in my mouth. I never said “algorithms can’t exist outside of computers”, and I definitely didn’t say some dumb shit like “Google invented algorithms”.

I get what you’re saying, but I think it’s a bit pessimistic.

The average person and the people below are only 50% of all people. There’s a lot of us who absolutely hate and avoid this slop shit.

Making music has never been super lucrative for the average musician, and the era of megastars was ultimately a small blip in this history of music.

I’m a musician myself, but I don’t do it for the money, I do it because I find it fun and rewarding. I’d imagine most musicians feel the way I do (I know many musicians, even a few with smaller record contracts, and none of them can live just off of the money that make from music. They still make the music tho, because it isn’t about the money.

The most popular artists are by nature lowest common denominator, many of them intentionally so, because those people care most about the money, so they make the safest music, blurring the lines of art and business.

The same thing I do everyday Pinky

Smoke weed

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/algorithm

What you’re talking about is 5 streams of lowest-common-denominator content

Algorithms are tailor made to individuals, and designed to keep one person specifically engaged

It’s not really comparable

They don’t need to buy it, other cartography companies already exist and already have their own maps

One of the other many cartography companies can do it

My browser can’t seem to open this, and I don’t use Twitter

You do understand that the internet is just a network of many different computers right? And that one computer can have many different IP addresses?

The Internet is designed to be decentralized, the only reason that it has become so centralized in recent history is because corporations can afford more infrastructure than regular people, allowing them to host a larger portion of the network.

If Google went away, any of those websites that are not actually a part of Google could just go be hosted elsewhere.

Did the phone networks stop working when the government broke up Ma Bell in 1983? Or did shit get way cheaper and better, and evolve into the internet (before devolving into the modern internet)? When did you first have an answering machine? Was it before or after 1983?

Edit to add some thought on the article itself - It’s heavily anecdotal, but an interesting read regardless. The only point she makes that would actually effect me would be the Lyft thing, but I rarely use that application anyway.

They briefly mention Apple Maps, but don’t expand on that later in the article, which would have been warranted. Apple Maps is leagues ahead of Google Maps for navigational purposes. I don’t think it has streetview, but I also don’t care about streetview.

• Apple Maps always understands an address I enter correctly (Google Maps does not, sometimes you need to put imaginary spaces in between address characters to make it work eg: “27w 702” instead of “27w702” (the actual address)
• Apple Maps can find an address that begins with a 0 (Google cannot do this, sometimes it can’t even do an address that brings with 1, and you have to omit that from the address to make it work eg: “n131” instead of “1n131 (the actual address)
• Apple Maps has never taken me to the wrong location (Google Maps had done this to me several times before I deleted it. Often this results in you going to the wrong address on the correct street, and only finding out it changed the address when the occupants answer their door confused.) The last time I tried to use it, I put in an address I know, and it dropped the pin on the opposite side of the city, not even on the same road as I had entered. I zoomed in on the pin, and it wasn’t even somewhere that a building exists, but it was labeled with the address I had entered.

Everyone should stop using Google Maps out of convenience, and switch to a better option. I’ve heard of FOSS maps as well but haven’t tried them out yet.

The search engine I use is already better than Google, it’s like how Google used to be. No ads, no AI, just relevant links. It can show results from Google if I ask it to, but I don’t need it to.

Well we already waste 1/3rd of all food manufactured, so we could theoretically grow 1/3rd less and still feed everyone the same amount.

You’re explicitly saying that people would need to die in order to get rid of Monsanto, which is just simply not true, and a massive logical leap. I’m not going to play “which people should go” with you, because I don’t accept your premise that anyone would need to go.

I’m not saying to replace them with identical corporations, and I’m not saying that whoever replaces them should operate the exact same way. I’m saying that Monsanto disappearing would not in and of itself prevent anyone from doing the things that they do.

My morning after plan for after Google is gone? I don’t need one, they’re already gone from my life, and have been replaced by better options (mostly FOSS stuff, so no “replacement corporations” like you seem to think would be necessary).

If Google disappeared right now, the only thing that would change for me is I would no longer have to listen to dumbassess tell me what “Google said” and that they themselves now wholly believe and accept about any given topic

Not saying I don’t believe you, but do you have a source? I’d like to read about this

To be clear, I’m not saying we need them, I’m saying that if we did need them, we have methods of preserving their machinations without allowing them to have complete regulatory capture.

Also, to your earlier point, you could assume that we need Monsanto now that they play such a large role in the system (I personally disagree, but you can make that argument), there is no argument to say “we’d all be dead already if Monsanto never existed”, which is essentially your argument. There is nothing special about Monsanto that gives them abilities others don’t have, they’re just the only company that’s currently and legally allowed to do so. Other people already know exactly how to do what they do, but they don’t because they can’t legally profit from it.

I can’t believe I’ve let you sidetrack me this far tho, we were talking about Google. You think the world would end without those chucklefucks? Because I think it’s more likely that the internet would begin to slowly revert to a “marketplace of ideas”, rather than remaining in it’s current form, a wall of corporate propaganda.

I mean, in this hypothetical scenario the government could just nationalize Monsanto

The distinction is that everything you listed is “intellectual property”, aka “thoughts”.

All of those are tools that are used to do the same shit we used to do without those tools, and if it all went away overnight, we could just go back to doing things the older way (the way we used to do things before they homogenized food in order to maximize profits, despite the reduction in nutritional value).

You are operating from the premise that profits are more important than anything else. That is flawed logic, and it’s based entirely on this specific current status quo. Outputs are not equal to profits, some farmers are paid by the government to specifically not grow things.

Your idea that the disappearance of Monsanto would cause widespread famine ignores the fact that none of Monsanto’s knowledge would die with the company. They have records, and there are living humans who know how to do everything on your list.

The existence of a corporation is not what allows agriculture to function. It functioned for thousands of years before Monsanto existed, and has functioned for less than 100 since (1945 is the year they first had anything to do with agriculture)