Inescapable consequences of letting zero-integrity optimization machines (psychopaths) run companies like this.
Of course they do this, what else are they supposed to do? It's their nature. Expecting otherwise is idiotic.
Getting outraged by this is like getting mad at the sun for rising. But if the legal system displays this absurd sham outrage, everyone will continue to be distracted from the actual problem, which is that society has no mechanism for intercepting these individuals and keeping them away from roles where they will obviously do things like this, because of course they will.
This is permitted constantly, we keep obtaining the same result constantly, all while the people who supposedly safeguard society gape and scratch their heads like orangutans. They are utterly taken aback that allowing the same transparently stupid situation doesn't magically start working, providing an object lesson in the meaning of stupidity itself.
it's a good thing that social media and video games consume no electricity at all, otherwise a lot of people would have to either stop saying this or just admit to open hypocrisy
Napster was the first dedicated p2p file sharing program IIRC. Peer-to-peer was done before then using DCC (direct client connection) on IRC servers, but it was hardly the same experience. Limewire and other BitTorrent software took off after the music industry killed Napster.
The brand was brought back a while later, and it was legitimate if I recall, but by that time nobody cared. BitTorrent had taken center stage, and iTunes had become a thing. The latter eclipsed BitTorrent (for music) because it was dead nuts reliable, and unlike BitTorrent, using it wouldn't get your Internet cut off. And it was wired into the iPod ecosystem, so for most people it was a very easy choice.
I specifically excluded Brother from my last printer search because I read they were getting precious about toner cartridges. HP was totally in on that as well with ink jet.
I was able to get a laser printer from HP that didn't have enshittified firmware, and that thing is never ever going to be on the network. This was a few years ago. I hope HP is sensitive to their business customers, who would be a large fraction of laser printer buyers. But I don't know how they are these days.
Smart TV with no Internet connection + streaming box with Internet connection. Every TV behaves the same way if they all use the same streaming boxes. If a streaming box provider steps out of line, you switch to another vendor or use a media PC.
TVs are forced to just be TVs, to display in the quality you bought them for. Their totally innocent array of hi-sensitivity Big Brother microphones have nowhere to transmit every sound in your living room, etc.
When they eventually start making it illegal or impossible to do that, I'll just wait for my last TV to die and then I don't know what. Maybe take up shuffleboard?
The article talks of ChatGPT "inducing" this psychotic/schizoid behavior.
ChatGPT can't do any such thing. It can't change your personality organization. Those people were already there, at risk, masking high enough to get by until they could find their personal Messiahs.
It's very clear to me that LLM training needs to include protections against getting dragged into a paranoid/delusional fantasy world. People who are significantly on that spectrum (as well as borderline personality organization) are routinely left behind in many ways.
This is just another area where society is not designed to properly account for or serve people with "cluster" disorders.
They're banning 10+ year accounts over trifling things and it's got noticeably worse this year. The widespread practice of shadowbanning makes it clear that they see users as things devoid of any inherent value, and that unlike most corporations, they're not concerned with trying to hide it.
This is certainly not the first time this has happened. There's nothing to stop people from asking ChatGPT et al to help them argue. I've done it myself, not letting it argue for me but rather asking it to find holes in my reasoning and that of my opponent. I never just pasted what it said.
I also had a guy post a ChatGPT response at me (he said that's what it was) and although it had little to do with the point I was making, I reasoned that people must surely be doing this thousands of times a day and just not saying it's AI.
To say nothing of state actors, "think tanks," influence-for-hire operations, etc.
The description of the research in the article already conveys enough to replicate the experiment, at least approximately. Can anyone doubt this is commonplace, or that it has been for the last year or so?
Джордан Петерсон