Blocking is always a good way to avoid needing to explain the contradictions in one’s reasoning.

Yikes, a major war you say?

Those are not my words. Not even Elon’s. Those are the words of the author of Elon’s biography, Walter Isaacson. What Elon said is:

If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.

The reason Ukraine can’t use Starlink in Russia (or occupied territories) is because Starlink is not enabled there due to US sanctions to Russia. Enabling it would be literally illegal for him to do. He also added later that had he been contacted by US officials and told to enable it, he would have, but they didn’t.

I don’t get people like you that start their rant by telling me to fuck off and then expect me to continue reading any further.

Assuming success and hoping for the contrary are not in conflict with eachother

It’s rare to see someone value truth over pride. Kudos to you.

Did Elon Musk Turn Off Starlink Access in Crimea To Disrupt Ukrainian Attack?

To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war.

Serious. Even if people don’t say it aloud, there are ones practically hoping for Tesla FSD to fail and kill someone, Neuralink recipient to die of complications or the Crew Dragon module to fail and kill the astronauts only so that they can say “I told you so” and then keep shitting on Elon. Any rational person would hope for these companies to succeed despite who the CEO is because it’ll benefit all of us on the long run.

What’s the irony? Unlike Boeing in the past few years, SpaceX has a rather good reputation among the people whose judgement is not blinded by hatred towards the CEO.

The insanity of Elon haters is beyond me…

Well, I’m on Lemmy myself, so perhaps that’s some sort of an indication of where I prefer to discuss thing with people in general, not just about AI. My list of blocked users is rather vast though, so a big part of the loudest haters are being filtered out from my feed. That surely contributes to the better experience here - or atleast less bad.

Definitely prefered it over there at reddit, but I’m a man of principle so I’m not going back either.

Well I’d say that for a person to be evil they’d need to be doing evil things with the sole intention of causing harm with nothing good coming out of it. Perhaps a good caricature of an evil person would be someone wanting to destroy the world including themselves. Admittedly such people absolutely does exists so maybe that debunks my own claim.

However if someone draws joy from causing harm to others I wouldn’t still call it evil but more like extreme disregard; you don’t care how others feel, only how it makes you feel. This is why I don’t think billionaires abusing the system for their own benefit makes them evil because causing harm is a byproduct of their selfish goals but not the intention of them. Similarly someone like Hitler wasn’t evil either because causing suffering to the jews was not the reason he set up the death camps but rather a way to achieve his other goals.

No, but probably the dedicated subreddit

I couldn’t think of a worse platform to try and discuss this topic than Lemmy. The consensus here is essentially that big companies = bad, AI companies = big, and thus AI = bad.

…is how generative-AI haters redefine terms and move the goalposts to fight their cognitive dissonance.

Well first of all, I don’t personally think evil even exists.

Secondly, I don’t think these people are any more or less “evil” than the rest of us. They just operate on a much larger scale that affects many more people. If any of us normal folk would be put under equivalent level of scrutiny as these guys with journalists combing thru our every social media post and paparazzis following us around combined with the intention to dig up dirt and contribute to the negative narrative that sells better than a positive one, we’d all look like them. Most people don’t like Gates, Musk or Zuck because that’s the conclusion they’ve independently arrived at. It’s how they’ve been told to think by the media.

Advertisements are for a large part about brand recognization. Even if you’re not going to buy the product, the fact that you remember the brand means the ad has worked.

By using Lemmy we’re already filtering out certain people and opinions. I personally think that the more control we have over what we see, the better. I don’t think it’s opposing views people want to filter out. It’s the ones having those views and being dicks about it.

My 10 year old TV which I watch 10 year old TV-series via HDMI from? I don’t think so.

Tomorrow there’s going to be article about how my car spies on me as if that’s not 15 years old too. Or something about my office job that I don’t have.

I’m becoming irrelevant. Not the target audience for anything.

Unavoidably so but then again, going sideways because of a downvote is just more data on who you might want to block.

Echo chamber within echo chamber I guess.

It’s not the people whose opinions I disagree with who I usually block. It’s people making snide comments like this while fishing for upvotes. I’ll reserve my attention to the ones who have something to say rather than ones just wanting to make noise.