/s

I'm definitely willing to keep taking it. If insurance won't pay for it, I could pay for the pill out of pocket if I had to, which would be cost prohibitive for the injections.

As I said, if AI companies reproduce copyrighted works, they should be sued, just like a human artist would be. I haven't experienced that in my interactions with LLMs, but I've never really tried to achieve that result either. I don't really pirate anymore, but torrents are a much easier and cheaper way to do copyright infringement than using an AI tool.

In fact, it's kind of the opposite of what you say—everyone is contributing fractionally to the solution. This is what climate doomers miss.

This doesn't mean climate change isn't a problem, because even with this progress, we're way behind and not moving nearly fast enough. But often it's the green side of the spectrum that's lying by catastrophizing and understating progress, while overstating the severity of what's happening.

It's happening similarly with AI, where the green movement has decided that AI is unacceptable, even though it has a tiny ecological footprint compared to activities like watching Netflix or eating nuts, let alone eating beef or flying on a plane.

The latter problem should be prevent by code review (first by the developer using the AI tool and then their teammates on a PR.) Code generated by AI should be reviewed no differently than code written by a human. If you wouldn't approve the PR if a person wrote this code, why would you approve it because an LLM wrote it? If your PR process is not catching these issues, you have a PR process problem, not an AI problem.

The former problem I have no idea.

Many of those people living paycheck to paycheck have a budget where they're saving or investing a significant amount of their money, and accordingly, money feels tight. This is the financially sound way to avoid lifestyle creep, but it doesn't mean you're in a precarious position. Or alternatively, they're paying for really expensive, but optional things like private schooling and expensive cars or vacations.

Obviously some people are struggling, but this paycheck-to-paycheck stat is not an accurate way to quantify that. It's best IMO to look at objective metrics like the poverty rate, or people's objective financial picture (available via surveys.)

The phrase "requiring benefit" is doing a huge amount of heavy lifting in this statement by assuming benefit is something that can easily be agreed upon, or that it's not already taken into account.

Since it will obviously be difficult to agree on this, what if we just vote? I'd propose a system where each of us gets a certain amount of tokens, and then we use our tokens to vote on which products are beneficial. Those companies that make beneficial products will receive the most tokens. They can distribute some of them to their employees and shareholders. The companies that don't provide enough benefit will naturally go under as they fail to accumulate enough tokens to attract employees. We can also set up systems to ensure that everyone receives a minimum number of tokens, and also so that certain people don't accumulate so many tokens as to give them too much control over society.

I believe this system will work well for rewarding companies which produce benefits and punishing those who don't and look forward to it being implemented.

https://nypost.com/2011/06/20/got-his-mined-in-the-gutter/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfrqUNFtM6A

Imagine if we had a problem where a bunch of people were burglarizing houses, so we decided to declare specific enforcement zones where the cops were really on top of preventing burglaries. Would people be less likely to burgle, or would they just do their burglaries elsewhere?

Instead, town-wide, it should be made known with prominent signs that traffic enforcement is in use, and ideally the cameras should move around, so that people can't simply adjust their behavior to compensate. In other words, your idea, but put that sign on every intersection.