It doesn't make sense to say a model is in possession of its self. That's exactly the sort of poetic anthropomorphization that Bender was criticising here, and a good reason to not refer to an LLM as "an AI".

You can't. That's just the way the news goes.

Essentially, what you are saying is that because some people somewhere frame a statement as pejorative, the statement itself is inherently pejorative. By that logic, every criticism ever articulated is inherently an insult.

> We can't afford it, and it's a bad investment anyway

What we are really missing is an explicit progression from new software to maintained packages across distribution. As it is, each distro expects each package to have a maintainer, and very few people actually want to do that across several distros just to release their software. Generally, the expectation is to instead just wait around for people to make and maintain those packages by virtue of their own interest in your software, but it takes a while, and discoverability isn't automatic.

The government does not get to put child locks on my liquor cabinet, or even keep me from leaving booze out on the counter. They get to restrict businesses from selling to people without identification. Note that this has already always been the case on the internet, too.

And that's my point. It's a tautology that demands our participation, while at the same time literally devaluing participation itself.

If you want to understand my position, then you need to step out of that tautological frame, and consider labor as valuable. If you avoid doing that, then you are just avoiding what I'm trying to communicate here.

If you dig a well, you probably own the lot, and also own associated water rights. Otherwise, you are paying for water processing and municipal reservoir management by the gallon. That's how it works for people in houses.

Your mistake is assuming a datacenter is more like that, and less like an agricultural consumer. It's the other way around. A data center and/or power plant handles its own water processing, which only involves water rights.

There is a huge difference between protecting children and prosecuting/punishing children. Age verification can only be an implementation of the latter.

People in a town square still have identities. They are just likely to not know each other.

I think this is a significant part of a great idea. What it, and most/all other communication software is missing, is the ability to continue a conversation into a new context. It would be great to move a convo from the public square into a shop, then maybe share contact info to get together another day.

Why in the hell would anyone spend ten years writing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again? Because they have no intrinsic meaning to provide, or because their life has no meaning to reflect?

We may as well set aside this argument anyway, because it actually isn't relevant. If I accept your premise that the product of work is the only value in labor, then why are there specific categories of product that I can value, and others that I cannot? That's the situation copyright has put us in: if I create the right kind of work, but it's derivative, then that's a violation of someone's copyright. If I create derivative work, but it's the wrong kind, then I can't copyright it. The only kind of work that I can profit from freely is "original", which is a false premise to begin with.

So what is the alternative? Speculation. In a society without copyright, labor must be funded somehow. Rather than promise a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, we would simply fund artists who we believe will create valuable products. We already do this to a moderately significant extent: everyone knows about Patreon and OnlyFans. Most successful creators rely on ad revenue instead of royalties. The problem with this model is that it must compete with copyright holders, who get to monopolize entire swaths of derivative work, and leverage the guarantee of their already-performed work as much easier to sell than speculative investment. Get rid of copyright, and the market simply becomes fair.

The solution is not to price water as a commodity, either. If we priced water high enough to disincentivize waste, we would create an incredible burden for regular people. Water should be as cheap as possible, and at the same time regulated to guarantee an amount of conservation. People who can afford to more than double a state's power grid capacity, all for a single data center, can afford more water than the populace can afford.

What we need is to regulate water use generally so that the watersheds and ecosystems we rely on can be reasonably conserved.

The sheer sense of scale on this particular project is mind-boggling.

> 9 gigawatts of power—more electricity than the entire state of Utah currently uses

In a community where conservation is at the forefront of everyone's minds, planning something that big is like a slap in the face.

Your labor has value to everyone else, even if that value is speculative. If we don't have a mechanism to commoditize the ends of labor, then we can just speculate instead. Speculating the value of labor is more uncertain than valuing copyrighted works, which means that the business of labor speculation cannot compete with the business of copyright valuation. At the same time, copyright is a lie: the "product of a work" is a totally arbitrary imagined boundary that can't always be meaningfully drawn in the first place; meaning that entire categories of work are impossible to copyright at all. Removing that lie would put everyone on a level playing field, where all labor is valuable, and all valuation is fair.