Clymene

joined 1 year ago
[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Agreed! There was a great Not Just Bikes video on YouTube on this topic.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

The article expresses multiple views. Half the article highlights a call by various groups to enforce the ban on scooters completely. The title obviously implies that the solution is an enforcement of Toronto’s ban, not better infrastructure.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This article doesn’t mention that the last straw was a tweet where he joked “You’re free to leave at anytime”, by which he meant “kill yourself if you’re so concerned about the planet”.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Should you have to walk your scooter on an otherwise empty strip mall sidewalk whenever there is even a single pedestrian in eye sight? I think it’s fine to walk the scooter before crossing paths and then get back on.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are positive economic externalities to public everything availability. We don’t live in this kind of world though, someone will always try to claim a larger share due to human nature.

Saying "Things are inevitably bad because of human nature" is just very weird, since we obviously do have good policies and we try to solve other problems like crime and poverty. It sounds like you already agree that this is good policy? You're just saying it's not politically feasible? OK, sure, we probably don't disagree then.

That being said, I’m not really interested in arguing about the political feasibility (or lack thereof) of having every resource being public.

I am obviously NOT arguing that every resource should be public. This discussion is about AI, which was publicly funded, trained on public data, and is backed by public research. This sleight of hand to make my position sound extreme is, frankly, intellectually dishonest.

there’s also a cost people pay to use these LLMs.

OK, keep the premium subscription going then.

What you’re missing though is that there is an extreme shortage of components.

There's a shortage, but it's not "extreme". ChatGPT is running fine. I can use it anytime I want instantly. You'd be laughed out of the room if you told AI researchers that ChatGPT can't scale because we're running out of GPUS. You seem to be looking for reasons to be against this, but these reasons don't make sense to me, especially since this particular problem would exist whether it's publicly owned or privately owned.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So long as they aren’t going full speed while on sidewalks and they’re adjusting their speed according to the number of pedestrians, I fully agree. Sometimes you have to go at a walking pace on a crowded sidewalk, and if it’s an empty suburban sidewalk with clear visibility, I see no problem at all.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I hate that cars can go around running over people every single day without making the news, but this e-scooter accident is supposedly worthy of national news.

Every accident is regrettable, but the number of accidents we tolerate from scooters and bikes can’t be zero. Micro mobility is still MUCH safer than cars. I bet if the e-scooter driver was killed by an unnecessarily big truck on the road, it would still be called an “e-scooter accident” if it even made the news at all.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No, I am not ignoring that. I specifically said:

Even if costs goes up to several tens of million a day for access for the whole world that’s incredibly affordable.

With how many people are already using AI, it’s frankly mind boggling that they’re only losing $700k a day.

You’re also ignoring the fact that costs don’t scale proportionally with usage. Infrastructure and labor can be amortized over a greater user base. And these services will get cheaper to run per capita as time goes on and technology improves.

Finally, there are positive economic externalities to public AI availability. Imagine the improvements to the economy, education and health if everyone in the world had free access to high quality AI in their native language, no matter how poor or how remote. Some things, like schools, roads and healthcare, are not ideally provisioned under a free market. AI is looking to be another.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Less than a million dollars a day for everyone who wants to in the whole world to use AI right now? That’s peanuts. A single city bus costs $5-800k to buy. Even if costs goes up to several tens of million a day for access for the whole world that’s incredibly affordable.

It’s crazy that something so useful and so cheap to run can’t be sustained in the current system. This seems like an argument against a market based solution to AI.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 67 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Too much is made of the shrinking user base. I’m sure they’ll come back with a vengeance come the start of the school year in the northern hemisphere.

Also, maybe a tool like this shouldn’t be privately funded? Most of the technology is based on university funded research we all paid for. mRNA vaccine research was similarly funded with public money in mostly universities, and now we have to pay some private company to sell it back to us. How is that efficient? AI should be common property.

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

What is "naturally"? I heard about Lemmy through reddit during the exodus. Was that unnatural?

[–] Clymene@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

People "all already know about Apple computers", but they keep reminding us anyways! It seems to work. I think there are a lot of people who have been meaning to check out Lemmy, and could use a reminder. Or people who came and left before it was as worth staying.

view more: ‹ prev next ›