throwaway589275

I also think people should consider a "starve the beast" strategy, at least on principle. Is it really wise to be publishing art under a CC license, or code under an OSI-approved license, knowing that it will just be fed into one of these LLMs for profit (of which you will have no share), and against which you may have to compete for a job in the future? Heck, it seems like even copyrighted content (if published on the internet) isn't necessarily safe, if the Getty watermarks in DALL-E outputs are anything to go by.

GPT-3 is legitimately the closest thing I've ever seen in my lifetime to what people 30 years ago saw when they first witnessed NCSA Mosaic, and I'm amazed to see people in tech downplaying its significance the way they are. Many of these same people were in awe of the iPhone, which while a legitimate technological breakthrough, IMO will not prove nearly as disruptive as this tech. And probably many of these same naysayers foolishly bought into the hype around crypto. But here you have something that is going to be massively disruptive, and not necessarily in a good way, and instead of sounding the alarm, you have "crying wojak mask"-tier comments reassuring each other that everything will be fine.

GPT is going to put millions of writers, artists, and programming/IT professionals out of work, full-stop. It will also make Sam Altman and other tech billionaires even richer than they already are, and worsen already extreme wealth inequality. It's obvious enough at this point that I can't believe people don't realize this. Just look at how rapidly the technology is being adopted, even by normies.

I'm not going to give the OP life or career advice, but for my part, I am actively trying to invest substantial amounts of my money into the firms I think will win the AI revolution, at least to protect myself form the downside.

Also, this isn't just an idle prediction on my part; for what it's worth, I've started substantially shifting my net-worth towards the entities I think will be the winners.

Prediction: OpenAI/GPT (or Google's DeepMind, if you prefer) is going to cause mass unemployment in certain sectors of the economy (for example, graphic designers, copywriters, and many IT professionals) long before it ever addresses any of the fundamental problems that currently substantially reduce human quality and quantity of life, like aging or cancer.

In the near-term, AI will just accelerate the winner-take-all nature of our economy.

Too bad this was flagged, since the OP 1) not only described himself as "a regular reader" of reddit (embarrassing enough), but of a particular reddit where people post made up stories (that he takes at face value), and 2) that he has the physiognomy (google him) of a male feminist undone by sexual assault allegations.

He doesn't look 18 in the photo. Also there's nothing remarkable in the article, just the usual cosmetic procedures and diet/exercise crap. It's funny, these people must think they're the first person to do whatever their preferred diet/exercise combo is, since they never seem to stop to think, if this actually worked, and someone else tried it, why didn't they live to 120 (or longer)?

This. And god forbid you suggest on HN that it's OK if Google and other tech megacaps are actually run for the collective benefit of their stockholders, which besides current and former employees, includes practically every American with a retirement account, including those not fortunate enough to win the FAANG lottery. Expect downvotes and flags, presumably from those who seriously believe Google should just keep paying people $300k a year indefinitely, despite perceived underperformance.

> are not celebrities. They're usually vulnerable people with some sort of mental illness who are struggling

Like Baked Alaska (IRL Streamer and convicted Jan 6. participant), or Nick Fuentes (most prominent gen z white nationalist)? The people they cover are YouTubers and Twitch streamers with thousands or even millions of followers. Some of them are also multimillionaires. These are not struggling people. And besides documenting the more pedestrian cases of streamers grifting and sex-pesting, there is some truly bizarre social phenomena that you can't find documented elsewhere (or at least nowhere near to the extent), such as the million pity/trillion tears monkey hate stuff (which incidentally, YouTube and FB enable, and of which people like you seem unaware or unconcerned).

> And I don't buy for a moment the "no touch" policy

That's because you haven't spent much, if any, time on the site. Lurk more.

> Just because you can't use a specific website to harass someone, does not mean you can't use the information on the website to harass them off-platform. This is a bad take

If you really believed this nonsense, you'd be going after Discord, Signal, etc--apps which literally can be (and have been) used to coordinate harassment, and which will remain running irrespective of KF's fate.

> 4chan constantly deletes its own content.

There are archives, like rebeccablacktech and 4plebs, which Google likewise blackholes. You could argue Google also does not care much for archives, yet I still get StackOverflow clone results, for some reason.

> KiwiFarms is just a website to organize doxxing and online harassment

KF is a gossip site, like Lipstick Alley or DataLounge, but with a focus on e-celebs and internet phenomena. I go there whenever I want to get the dirt (ie. truth) about e-celebs or some weird internet trend or subculture. Its users literally just passively document and discuss this stuff, and there's a policy (and ethos) of "no touch." You and others endorsing its erasure (despite it not breaking any law) would know this (and perhaps secretly do) if you actually lurked there for a while instead of just credulously accepting its critics' characterization. It's also strange how the site is supposedly such a hive of doxxers, harassers, etc., yet nothing seems to happen to the journalists and tech people organizing against it.

I think the real reason it's in hot water is precisely because they just passively, permanently document so much, some of which some people with money and influence don't want documented. Maybe they documented something someone (some billionaire?) secretly doesn't want out there?

It's not clear that people actually care about and want AI-free OC, at least if you look at what kind of content is being consumed. Right now Google search seems to prioritize non-organic content, with search results often being a stream of blogspam and reddit/quora shill/astroturf crap that if not AI-generated, is close enough in terms of tone, accuracy, and originality, that it might as well be.

Meanwhile you never get any results from 4chan or KiwiFarms (sites with much more organic content), unless you go out of your way to specifically ask for it.

> Chase has a hard 5/24 rule where you can’t have opened more than 5 cards with any issuer within 24 months. But that doesn’t include business cards.

I've never been able to get a Chase card.

> You also have to space credit card applications out. It also helps that I have a long credit history. I opened my first card in 1996.

I think I applied for too many at once. Also I take advantage of those 0% introductory APRs and run a balance (only paying the monthly minimum for the duration, and paying the remainder as one lump sum before it expires), which adversely affects my score.

> Then there is also the concept of “churning” where you sign up for cards just for sign up bonuses. Those can be worth between $600-$1200 per card.

This doesn't work for long, IME. The banks quickly get wise to you, and won't give you any more bonus cards, at least for a while.

No one is reading the paper:

> We find a redistribution from low- to high-FICO consumers regardless of income. While super- prime high-income consumers benefit the most from reward credit cards ($20.1 in net rewards relative to classic cards), high-income consumers with sub-prime FICO scores on average pay the most (-$12.8). Meanwhile, super-prime low-income consumers ben- efit less ($9.7), but sub-prime low-income consumers also pay less (-$2.6). Thus, high- income consumers with high FICO scores benefit from reward credit cards largely at the expense of high-income consumers with low FICO scores.

> As our findings are inconsistent with the “reverse Robin Hood” hypothesis

tl;dr: it's a stupid tax. People with high incomes who are still financially unsavvy end up indirectly subsidizing lower income, savvier CC users.