> There’s a clean exception to all of this, and it flips the entire logic.

> If letting go of the argument sounds like pure loss, here’s the reframe that turns it into a gain.

> The ego is lowered. The defenses are down. The advice lands.

Even if there was some human insight that went into it, the output could be reduced in length by 80+% without any loss of substance.

Since dabbling with some open source models (llama, mistral, etc.), I've found that they each have slightly different quirks, and with a bit of prompting can exhibit very different writing styles.

I do share your observation that a lot of content I see online now is easily identifiable as ChatGPT output, but it's hard for me to say how much LLM content I'm _not_ identifying because it didn't have the telltale style of stock ChatGPT.

On a personal level, I'm not happy to see a medallion-owning taxi driver lose their livelihood, in the same sense that I'm not happy to see anyone lose their livelihood, e.g., due to economic conditions, due to a company shutting down, or any other reason.

At the same time, there will be winners and losers from any economic or technological shift, and it seems that in our capitalist society we value progress and competition, underpinned by some utilitarian calculus that the short-term thrash is worth it for the long-term prosperity.

Inventing the telephone certainly would have harmed mail couriers, inventing the automobile would have harmed horse breeders, etc., but we don't typically reflect on those inventions as being ethically problematic.

In short, what I'm wondering is whether you think there's something uniquely unethical about the "tech bro" style of disruption, or if your perspective is more broadly a critique of capitalism.

After reviewing the chat history I actually have to issue a correction here, because there were two moves where ChatGPT played illegally:

1. ChatGPT tried to play 32. ... Nc5, despite there being a pawn on c5

2. ChatGPT tried to play 42. ... Kxe6, despite my king being on d5

It corrected itself after I questioned whether the previous move was legal.

I was pretty floored that it managed to play a coherent game at all, so evidently I forgot about the few missteps it made. Much like ChatGPT itself, it turns out I'm not an entirely reliable narrator!

Up to 10 or 15 moves, sure, we're well within common openings that could be regurgitated. By the time we're at move 20+, and especially 30+ and 40+, these are completely unique positions that haven't ever been reached before. I'd expect many more illegal moves just based on predicting sequences, though it's also possible I got "lucky" in my one game against ChatGPT and that it typically makes more errors than that.

Of course, all positions have _some_ structural similarity or patterns compared to past positions, otherwise how would an LLM ever learn them? The nature of ChatGPT's understanding has to be different from the nature of a human's understanding, but that's more of a philosophical or semantic distinction. To me, it's still fascinating that by "just" learning from millions of PGNs, ChatGPT builds up a model of chess rules and strategy that's good enough to play at a club level.

When I talk about being able to honestly assess willingness to pay, I'm talking about the pirate who claims that they wouldn't buy a good anyway so they might as well pirate it. It might be true, but all we can really say from the outside is that they value the good at least $0 worth, so their willingness to pay is somewhere between 0 and infinity. You can't put an upper bound on their willingness to pay just because they didn't buy the good when they got the good for free.

I don't particularly care if people pirate, but I find that pirates tend to do a fair bit of mental gymnastics trying to justify why piracy is ethical; I think the "I wouldn't pay for it anyway" argument falls under that umbrella.

If we were to take a typical pirate and transport them to a hypothetical world where piracy was physically impossible, I think you'd generally find that they're not actually priced out of the market for many of the goods that they currently pirate. They'd likely cut down their consumption in a major way, but I strongly suspect that they'd still be willing to pay for a significant portion of the goods they currently pirate.

The difference is that they don't have a frictionless way of "pirating" electronics, so they are actually forced to choose between paying for the good and abstaining from it. With media, it's easy to rationalize that you wouldn't be giving the producer money anyway, but I'm skeptical of your ability to honestly evaluate that when you have the option to trivially enjoy the good for free.

That doesn't necessarily apply to you specifically, since it's dependent on your financial situation and how much you consume various media. Imagine yourself in a hypothetical world where it wasn't physically possible to pirate any music, TV shows, movies, software, etc. Would you really completely abstain from enjoying those goods, or would you simply reduce your consumption while actually paying for it? I think for many people, it's the latter.

Put differently, my point is that "ethical" launches are simply good marketing, and are quite compatible with the sentiment expressed upthread that "[altcoins] are schemes to lure money into the creator's wallets". If a given coin becomes popular, the creator is going to profit immensely from it whether or not they engaged in pre-mining. By doing an "ethical" launch, they're making it more likely that the coin gains significant adoption, albeit probably decreasing the expected size of their payout. That seems like a smart play, given diminishing marginal utility of money, etc.

http://rapgenius.com/rapstats?q=html%2C%20javascript

If you want to spend years doling out awesome advice for free and then "cashing out" like this, I encourage you to do so. It would certainly be more valuable than bringing up the insipid "everything is selfish" argument.

The overwhelming majority of poker hands are now played online, and the limits go as low as $0.01/$0.02 -- in today's poker landscape, the winning players tend to be those who initially invest a small amount of money and gradually climb the ladder with careful bankroll management.

The opportunity cost, on the other hand, can be very high. Many people waste a lot of time trying to become good at the game without experiencing any meaningful degree of success.

1) You post an article which includes several facts that are taken directly from Joshua's article. No credit is given to the original author.

2) Joshua publicly calls you out on this.

3) You quickly edit in a credit and a link to the original article.

4) With the awareness that future readers will see this credit and assume that Joshua is making an unfounded complaint, you send a series of aggressive tweets attacking him for bringing this issue up.

Now, it's possible that this isn't an accurate timeline, and now would be a good time for you to clarify what happened. But understand that the issue here isn't (entirely) the fact that you paraphrased another person's article; it's that it looks like you didn't give him credit, acted very deceptively to conceal that fact and save face, and that you did so in a particularly childish way.