Could also be great for maintenance dosing. I'm reaching the end of my ~weight loss journey~, and it's not a sure thing that the insurance company will continue paying for the injections once I'm no longer overweight.
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.
Every artist and creator of anything learned by engaging with other people's work. I see training AI as basically the same thing. Instead of training an organic mind, it's just training a neural network. If it reproduces works that are too similar to the original, that's obviously an issue, but that's the same as human artists.
For profit products are for profit products, that are required to compensate if they are derivative of other works (in this case, there would be no AI product without the upstream training data, which checks the flag that it's derivative).
If you would like to change the laws, ok. But simply breaking them and saying 'but the machine is like a person' is still... just breaking the laws and stealing.
This is a bad-faith argument, but even if I were to indulge it: human artists can/do get sued for mimicing the works of others for profit, which AI precisely does. Secondly, many of the works in question have explicit copyright terms that prohibit derivative works. They have built a multi-billion dollar industry on scaled theft. I don't see a more charitable interpretation.
You can't call something a bad-faith argument just because you disagree with it. I mean, you can, but it's not at all convincing.
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.
LLMs don’t have to be able to mimic things. And go ahead and sue OpenAI and Anthropic! It won’t bother me at all. Fleece those guys. Take their money. It won’t stop LLMs, even if we bankrupted OpenAI and Anthropic.
Marx had plenty of problems with Germany - or specifically Prussia - too... In Critique of the Gotha Programme, for example, he harangued the now SDP for arguing for free state provided education, on the basis that he argued it was rather the Prussian state that had a severe need of being educated by the people.
(He favoured a US-inspired model of public licensing, but privately run schools instead)
We are much greener though, at least in the West. Climate emissions peaked in Europe and North America in the last few decades (earlier in Europe.) In Europe, forests are growing back, because marginal agricultural land is being returned to forests as yields rise on prime land. I think this is beginning to happen in the US as well.
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.
That's right. So essentially we are in a deadlock where every side says "im only contributing fractionally to the problem", and nobody on Earth really has the full capability of blocking the activities you described from happening, especially not when there is good money to be made (e.g coal mining vs AI vs raising cows)
Doesn't seem like a bright future, but at least AI does have a chance of solving the problem while contributing to it. No other behavior could really say the same.
You're still missing it, we are not in a deadlock. Developed countries are in fact decarbonizing. China too is decarbonizing, though they're behind where the West is, but their goal is to peak their emissions by 2030.
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.
Ok, so your opinion is that in X number of years, we may well hit some new level of decarbonization where we have severely contained or reversed the effects of climate change and so on, thanks to a relatively decentralized cooperation between all countries, even historical bad actors.
My position is that that is all theatre, that even if we do achieve that it will be temporary (nth industrial revolution, nuclear war, etc), and that we will eventually be the cause of our own worldwide collapse-- all while thinking we have control to the very end.
I mean, if you're that fatalistic, why worry about AI (or even climate change) in particular? If we're all just doomed no matter what, you may as well just enjoy what you can from life and not stress too much about any particular development.
Is the issue that the suggestions from the AI tool are not good, or is that bad code is making it into the repo?
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 living paycheck to paycheck stat is meaningless. It generates headlines, because bad news wins, but if you dig in, even the surveys that ask about this reveal that a large percentage of people living paycheck to paycheck are very financially secure, both objectively, and according to their own assessment. I don't have time right now, but I'd encourage anyone reading this to go find the actual source for this stat and read their full report. Last time I looked, it was freely available.
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 most common one is saying that someone is paycheck to paycheck but they're also funding their 401(k) up to company match, etc.
It's usually just the inverse of saying most people don't have ready cash savings laying around; because there's no need to when you have credit every which way all the time.
Much better to look at the debt load on people and how that changes over time. Someone who makes $5k a month and spends $3k on debt service and lives off $2k is going to feel much different from someone who makes the same $5k, lives on $2k, and spends $3k on candles or whatever (since they can stop buying candles anytime but you can't easily stop paying down debt).
When I hear "living paycheck to paycheck" I think it means your recurring expenses (rent, utilities, food, etc.) consume all your income every month and you have nothing left to save. No savings. No investments. No 401K. If you don't get your next paycheck you can't pay the rent.
I think your definition is completely reasonable, but it's not how people answer the question (again, based on reading the report, which has a lot more detail.)
> It's usually just the inverse of saying most people don't have ready cash savings laying around; because there's no need to when you have credit every which way all the time
This is quite a precarious situation to me. People should not need nor be encouraged to rely on debt to live life, especially month to month.
The default mode should be working people make enough to, if budgeted moderately well, can pay for everything plus save money away post tax[0]
Anything less and you’re only growing systemic issues over time
[0]: including tax exempt savings like 401Ks is ill-reflective of people’s ability to save money aside for emergencies and unexpected costs
That's exactly the point he's making. That exact slight of hand underpins all those "huge percent of population living paycheck to paycheck" headlines.
I love seeing this in those periodic ragebait articles about how a family earning 400k+ is "paycheck to paycheck" after maxing out their retirement accounts, paying for private schools and vacations, mortgage on a $2m house, car notes on two newer luxury cars, etc. etc.
"After long term saving and paying for my indulgent lifestyle, I just don't have anything left at the end of the month!"
Somewhat offtopic, but I call these articles "parading the idiot". Where a newspaper or other media outlet runs an article interviewing a person where the subject is clearly out of step with everyone else in their assumptions.
See also articles where a property investor complains about how hard they are doing financially because they have to sell one of their eighteen investment properties.
I find it pretty egregious that someone who is saving/investing a chunk of every paycheck could be considered to be "living paycheck-to-paycheck." I feel like the most obvious definition most of us would assume is that nearly 100% of your paycheck gets spent on goods and services, and/or bills and debts, before your next paycheck.
The Federal Reserve has pretty detailed studies on this that take a nuanced view of spending behavior. Households with no excess income after necessary expenses are in the 10-15% range. The methodology is designed to exclude the diverse scenarios under which having no apparent excess income is an artifact of lifestyle rather than an economic reality.
This is literally me. I live paycheck to paycheck but also have a six figure sum of money I can tap into if needed.
How I got here is living way below my means in my twenties, saving up tons of money, and nowadays living at my means while still maxing retirement. I also have almost all that saved money invested, which just grows the pot as it sits.
So basically I spend all of every paycheck, after retirement has been deducted, but if I lost my job I could maintain my current life with zero income for a few years before running dry.
That is not living paycheck to paycheck by any reasonable definition. If you could stop contributing to savings/retirement/investments and suddenly have a ton of additional disposable income, then it's not that.
>That is not living paycheck to paycheck by any reasonable definition
Well then now we know that the media will happily use unreasonable definitions to bolster stats for click bait stories and headlines.
People assume paycheck to paycheck means "Spending each paycheck entirely on absolute necessities to live" but the survey definition is "Do you save any money from your take home pay every pay period".
This is how you get people at every income level reporting they live paycheck to paycheck.
I think you really underestimate how much people spend on stuff that is a non-necessity. People at every income level fall prey to the “if I’ve got extra money in my account, guess that means I can spend it”. There are, 100%, people living paycheck to paycheck that make 200k because they’ve made some terrible life choices and have outrageous debt to service, essentially.
I know several people who spend 100% of their income, saving none of it. Not because they have poor saving habits but because they've already saved more than they'll likely ever need for a comfortable retirement.
At which point, it actually kind of makes sense to blow your entire income on lifestyle.
where is this implication from? to me living paycheck to paycheck means you are living THE LIFE to the fullest. no “savings” or any BS like that. you make $50k a month, spend it all - wait for next paycheck. paycheck to paycheck
In the context of economics and poverty, paycheck to paycheck is defined as having no ability to save because necessary spending is consuming the entire paycheck.
Necessary spending is food, utilities, clothes, rent. But not eating out, fancy housing is a nice neighborhood, designer clothes, etc.
> 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.
I don’t understand. Isn’t everybody living paycheck-to-paycheck then?
> Requiring benefit is a huge step from where we are.
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.
Something along those lines is what I would propose, although once the tokens were used to decide which companies get dissolved (and maybe which ones get tax breaks) I'd zero-out all balances rather than creating a secondary economy around their circulation. By that point they'd have done their job. But I'm not really enough of a game theorist/economist/evolutionary biologist to be coming up with the details. My point is just that we should try something like this.
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.