The only reason the US government isn’t capable of this is because one party has decided that government doesn’t work. Period. Thats it. Deciding a thing “doesn’t work” because you don’t want it to work is called “being full of shit”
Which party is that? The one that constantly tries to cut the funding or the one that constantly tries to reward and excuse failure?
The republicans in congress threatening to cut programs they don’t like is probably not helping things. But there are numerous state and local governments that are the exclusive domain of the democrats that do a lousy job without any Republican boogeyman in sight.
In the interest of this being a place for discussions:
I have frequently heard the slogan that the republican efforts to cut federal programs is a major cause of why these programs failure. As I mentioned above, I am sure that such policy is not helping these programs, but as a bigger point, there is just not a good correlation between such policies and the actual effectiveness of various government programs. The military/dod is a great example of a part of the government that has received bipartisan budget increases for more than two decades running (it always escapes republican calls for fiscal responsibility) and yet the military is a pretty bloated and ineffective operation. Meanwhile the parks service, department of interior, EPA, etc are all constantly getting squeezed by the republicans and yet they are all pretty good at what they do and deliver a lot on a tight budget. If anything I would say that the effectiveness of government programs is inversely correlated with the intensity of republican assaults on them. Meanwhile in solidly blue areas there are plenty of government programs that just plain suck and plenty that work very well. If it were a simply matter of one party being the difference then you would not see so much variance. There is a lot more to what makes a government program effective than whether it is well funded. Saying that government is incapable of delivering core services is clearly a nonsense position, but blaming the failures of government on the republicans doesn't really seem to be supported by any evidence.
Longest period of peace in Europe seems like a pretty big achievement, even if many of us don't even know what it's like to live through wars in Europe. On a smaller scale, having a single currency, no roaming fees, traveling and working everywhere without worrying about tourist or a working Viswa is pretty big too.
Easy to forget about many of these things as we just take these as a given baseline.
When you don’t know the difference between good and bad, and when bullying your way through things on a technicality because you have the money to do so is normal, well I doubt seriously they convince themselves of anything. They know based on pure emotion and the desired outcome that they were wronged — so of course you sue?
Don’t believe ones lying eyes eh? There is plenty of reason to believe this may be the case and your refutation offers nothing to make anyone think otherwise. I am willing to listen if you’re willing to speak?
Because he did not get the job for what he knows, but who. Another candidate of equal knowledge, without the privilege of his connections, would not have succeeded.
That's a very odd take, not what I meant at all. All it got me was an interview, and then I went through the standard process, at two different companies.
I’m sorry I do not buy this as a form of “corruption”. Employers aren’t obligated to create perfectly leveled fields for candidates to apply on, especially when candidates are using AI to gin up fake resumes. Perhaps in some fields this is a legal obligation, but I don’t think that is what we’re discussing.
If the world were both good and just then perhaps I could hop on board. But it most certainly isn’t. Frankly, saying so sounds like sour grapes.
The references to Land Rover and Doctor Who make me think the author is British. In British English, "scheme" does not usually have negative connotations.
The endgame is undisclosed promotional content seamlessly inserted into algorithmic output. And of course this will be too indirect and obfuscated to be regulated. If you think lack of corporate accountability is bad now, wait until all reputation and liability have been fully laundered to AI.
Couldn't regulators simply target the other end? As in, denying businesses the right to "buy AI generated ad space"? Or denying ad companies a license to include seamless ads in AI generated output?
Billboards on the highway are limited in scope due to safety and other reasons. A billboard can't have mechanical arms that swing about causing driver distraction. If "information safety" is becoming a thing, the equivalent of "no mechanical arms on billboards" might be enforced on AI generators? Or am I suggesting a remedy worse than the problem is solves?
Consider the various restrictions on tobacco advertising. Now think about how newly legal gambling advertises. What regulations we have are largely a vestige of a different time. Half the politicians in this era put business over people, the other half don't have the legislative power to put people over business.
I suppose... If I ask Google's AI to walk me through the process of baking a chocolate cake, I don't care if the AI seamlessly recommends a brand of flour or appliance. As long as it doesn't compromise the fundamental cake-making advice.
Where it gets problematic, is if the AI pushes a specific brand as a necessary step of the cake-making process. Suddenly it's unethical.
It would also be a problem if the AI recommended a competing brand of appliance if I were specifically asking the AI to tell me how to use XYZ brand of appliance. Kind of like how Google lets advertisers buy ads for competitor keywords, which in my opinion is grubby and borderline unethical.
