I was going to say a human can’t carry it, but yours is good too.

You still don’t get it.

You don’t need to eat Lettuce to be healthy, you’ve been taught to think that way but it’s not even close to the truth.

Do you think that people 100 years ago had fresh produce all the time? That’s not how it worked for most of human history and they definitely ate healthier than we do now.

Frozen vegetables don’t have extra salt. Canned sometimes does but a) salt isn’t unhealthy and b) you can rinse them to get most of it off if you wanted.

Juice is not healthy. That’s pure marketing bullshit. It’s almost as bad as soda.

Your mindset is wrong. You expect what society has told you to to do. That’s expensive because our society is built around selling you shit you don’t need.

This is only true if you have fallen into the trap of not understanding what healthy means.

Eating healthy can actually be very cheap, you just won’t get to eat the things that societies thinks are exciting or the most delicious. You won’t be getting “I can’t believe it’s not meat” and the latest type of chia seed detox bullshit.

You can eat rice, lentils, onions, carrots, potatoes, oats, chickpeas, beans, tomatoes, bananas, and some dairy products and keep your meal prices down to less than a dollar while filling all nutritional requirements.

A basic Indian Dahl on rice works out to significantly less than a dollar per serving if you buy the ingredients in more than single use packages, 500 calories, 17 grams of protein, 8 grams of fat, and 80 grams of carbs for $0.75 is pretty fucking healthy.

Two servings of oats and a banana for breakfast? 50 cents, for again around 500 calories, 17 grams of protein (mostly the oats), and 7 grams of fat. You could splurge on a bit of yogurt and keep it under a dollar easily.

In terms of “effort” if you consider cooking 10 portions of Dahl for an hour and then freezing them individually to be too much effort, you don’t actually care about the cost of eating, you’re just too lazy.

That last thing could be said for most humans, especially those in the lower salary brackets. We still employ them in droves, and supervisors to supervise them too.

Now THAT’S a stupid question.

Good Job.

The answer to your first question is yes.

Children don’t get to set their own boundaries, that’s why we consider them children. Once they’re ready we call them adults.

If I allowed them to set their own boundaries, they’d probably already be dead. They get some pretty stupid ideas sometimes.

I’m laughing so hard right now.

You’re so idealistic. When you grow up and join the real world you’ll realize that what you said was funny too.

A) You clearly don’t have kids.

B) If everything they did as parents was perfect, people would have felt it was unreal, more so than even the super powers part.

C) It’s a TV Show, conflict and drama keeps people paying attention.

D) Homelander… there may not be stupid questions, but clearly there are stupid statements.

100% inheritance tax on any value over 5 million, and slam shut any loopholes that get found.

Force them to either spend it stimulating the economy or give it up to society directly.

The whole thing with religion is not needing to prove or justify anything to other people.

It’s a social “team” and teams need goals to exist.

When it wasn’t the Gays or abortions it was something else.

The crusades are an obvious example.

The church has cycled through enemies for the entire time its been around. Hell, they even split the religion into different religions just to have someone to play as the “other” and to consolidate power under new leadership.

Many hours a day. I have kids that still need my attention, we all eat dinner together, watch shows or play games together, I drive them to their sports, etc.

Just look at the data, there are historical records going back a century in many locations around the US. Find one close to you and do some digging.

The simple answer is that crazy does happen, and has happened historically, but it’s much more common now than it used to be.

Good movie, good acting, and even though the tech was absolutely silly the core concept is still as valid today as it was 30 years ago.

The Net (1995)

Your analogy is bad.

The human brain doesn’t need a massive data center, but neither does the compute to run a single agent.

We build entire cities to apply multiple human brains to problems.

Lots of AI hatred driving these. All emotional though rather than objective.

The question itself is also pretty stupid. My kids do “art” and it’s absolute slop. Most human made art is terrible, and never sees the light of day. It’s thrown in a recycle bin, forgotten by the mind, or sung to a shower wall.

A bunch of Art contests with AI winners (unknown by judges) have shown AI art can be as good or better than something done by an artist. This isn’t just for visual art either, they have been popular at producing songs too.

It feels like a lot of people are trying to reframe “art” as only things that have intentional meaning or an emotional story, rather than things you enjoy seeing and or hearing (or other senses).

AI songs can make me feel just as good as something from a musician. I don’t need all the “I saw them in person and got the t-shirt” bragging rights to enjoy them. I haven’t heard an AI song that’s as good as the best human made songs yet, but I’ve definitely heard AI songs that are far better than some of the worst human made songs (Anyone remember Rebecca Black?)

I have real paintings up on my walls, from artists I’ve never heard of, with images of things I have no connection or knowledge of. I didn’t buy them, they were purchased by someone else. They still look nice. Would I even be able to tell if they were AI? Probably not.

Does that mean that I can’t also enjoy specific pieces of art made by specific artists? Absolutely not. I will continue listening to Sandstorm by Darude until I die. I love a good Keanu Reeves movie. An Anne McCaffrey or Terry Pratchett Book.

AI art is a reflection of human art, so it must have some good parts. Will it take over all art? Never. Does anyone want it to? No.

Just like recordings of music didn’t kill live music, AI art will not kill real artists. It will definitely shake up the financial side of it though.

Using paid help from a third world country to tie them for you as their only job.

There’s almost no support for PD that high yet across devices. It will definitely take some time to roll out. The only laptop I know that supports it is the Framework 16, and it requires an extra purchase of a $150 charger.

Rag was never supposed to be about learning over time. It was supposed to provide better context at inference. It could never scale to handle new learning beyond focused concepts.

Eliminating programmers will be possible when we figure out how to eliminate engineers in designing buildings.

Only a true AGI will be able to do that, and while LLMs feel like a step towards AGI, they are still missing the critical ongoing learning component that needs to happen for an AGI to exist. The way the current systems are trained simply doesn’t allow for accepting and adopting new information continuously.

It aint just academia.