Hah, still enjoyed your comment quite thoroughly

Wait, I think you’ve mixed up what my point was about.

Someone said that a bad diet “actually” means something else. One commenter said they were able to outrun a bad diet and someone else said “no that’s impossible because that’s not what a bad diet means”.

They said everyone knows what “bad diet” means because obviously it’s impossible to outrun a bad diet. But that’s not true, because I didn’t know what they meant.

Someone can use nothing but “running” to burn off enough calories to counteract their “bad diet”, particularly if weight is their general goal. Will that make them the peak of physical fitness? No. But conversations about running and diet are often focused around weight gain/loss.

So yes, I know what people generally mean by “bad diet”, but it’s a very broad, general term. That one commenter acted like it has a fixed and specific definition that everybody knows.

Lol! The point of asking questions is to learn, not to give answers.

And I did learn from at least one or two other interesting answers!

There are many things in tech that have stagnated, or become standards that we’re stuck with. But we’re stuck with them not because nobody can do better, but because replacing them requires convincing the whole world to replace them.

Like email 2.0? You’d need it to be fully compatible with email 1.0, or nobody’s switching. And if it is fully compatible, you’re probably making compromises on how much it improves over 1.0.

On the other hand, as an end-user, my experience with email is easier than it was 20 years ago. This isn’t the technology changing, but email clients making things better and more accessible for the end user.

As to your other point, we don’t need “thinking machines” or “electronic telepathy” to consider the feasibility of technology replacing or reducing the need for certain types of jobs. Like I said, 20 years is a long time. Some things stay the same, yes, but many change.

You’re absolutely right that technology isn’t accelerating as quickly as it used to.

Still, things have changed quite a bit in the last 20 years. Cloud computing, for instance, didn’t need much to change in terms of the technical possibilities, or even in terms of the availability of consumer hardware. Groundbreaking changes can still happen without needing the baseline technology to improve.

Thank you for the info! I’m still hesitant about unknown consequences, but I’m far from an expert in that area.

No, in 20 years no version of any technology currently in use will be replacing human employees or would have the capability of doing so

That’s a pretty bold statement when technology advances have replaced or downsized the need for human roles in the past.

The printing press, cars, typewriters, computers, emails and the internet, spreadsheet software and data visualization software, cloud infrastructure…

Think about what technology looked like 20 years ago. Same with the job market. The same jobs are not available to the same extent at the same equivalent rates of pay. There are new jobs that are created, for sure. But saying that technology won’t advance in 20 years enough to reduce the need for human employees is short-sighted in my opinion.

…of course, that’s assuming that you meant “technology won’t be replacing some human employees” and not “all” employees, lol

What exactly is the risk to the ecosystem? Since you’re okay with it, you should know what it is, right?

The ecosystem is pretty important for things like us having food.

I’m a little earlier, mid 80s.

Unless OP changed the post title, you’re not. They’re asking about the 1900s and it doesn’t sound like you mean the 1850s or so! Haha

Right, the vast majority of people should not be consuming 5,000 calories per day.

At the same time, a bad diet could be something else, including a 2,000 calorie-per-day diet. And it’s perfectly reasonable to use the term to mean that.

If your bowel movements have as much impact on as many people and things as a company mismanaging $500,000,000, then yes, call a news reporter.

Damn, I didn’t realize the definition of “bad diet” was 5,000 calories per day. I never studied nutrition, so is there some sort of book or organization where that’s defined?

Your full name should be [FirstName] Mc[FirstNameFace]

This sounds like a perfect example of news. Companies fucking up is news. Why wouldn’t it be?

Alternative possibilities:

• Managers created metrics and a reward system for employees who use AI more often
• Employees used the work agents for personal stuff
• Employees just spent a bunch of time playing with AI to kill time
• Employees set up inefficient automatic flows that used the AI regularly
• Bad actors got access to use the company’s AI access and were exploiting it

But of course everyone knows what “bad diet” actually means

I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about

the city was sharing Flock camera data for immigration enforcement

Ah, these are in American cities.

apparently on accident,

Oh yes, definitely American.

(Yes I know I skipped over the part about Ohio)

(if i pay for it i might as well use it + more privacy)

I think you’d be paying for, but not using, your Internet bandwidth/speeds at that point

They should’ve just made the topic more obvious. I don’t have a problem if people want to have a circlejerk around hating AI, even in this community, but make it clear that’s what it is.

“Should we be calling it something worse than “AI slop”?”

Then everybody who’s into that kind of fun will join, and anybody who’s not interested can move on, lol

Did you actually read my comment […]?

Yes, which is how I know that your logic didn’t make sense.

Your faulty logic didn’t upset me nearly as much as it upset you. You interpreted someone saying “it’s not common” as telling you that it never happened, and seemed to feel entitled to an explanation.

Seriously though, I don’t know why you think I’d be upset, lol