NoThankYouTho

I personally believe that there are real silver linings to this. It's anecdotal, but I've seen people who don't normally reflect on their lives actually start to contextualize their role as workers, even if through fear of disruption.

Pointing out that it's not inherently AI's fault, more the way we've constructed our society - that the underlying goal is not to sustainably maximize wellbeing but to maximize wealth created (which leads to no safety net to keep the labor pool large and incentivizes the creation of AI to replace people cheaply) - is as important as dispelling "sci-fi self-awareness and autonomy" fears when talking about AI.

And there have been much stupider "public discourse" fads. They're not going anywhere and I'll take what I can get, honestly.

This is sort of an aside based on something I read in the article but does anyone know why the RFC guidelines say that you should first send an informational GOAWAY that does not prevent opening new streams when gracefully closing a connection?

They point out in the article that it's a better practice to immediately limit stream creation when you detect abuse - not wait for a round trip to complete first. I'm sure there's a good reason for the original guidelines; I'm just trying to get it and haven't found anything clarifying through Google. Was it specified before the rise of modern attacks?

I meant to stress the "opposing progress" part of my comment. The two things are only the same if there was a universal, objective definition of progress in the context of bettering humanity.

You are definitely correct, but there is a popular perception that Luddites are just reactionarily opposing progress because it hurts their own personal interests.