Isn't there a risk doctors stop giving out a diagnosis for most cases? So you'll pay for their time then have to see 10 different ones before getting any idea what's wrong? Because they're avoiding the risk of a wrong diagnosis in all but the most obvious cases.

The easy way to stop this is to charge less. 50 bucks. And have the patient sign something and have him affirm that his diagnosis is probabilistic and not fully reliable.

They need to charge what they’re actually worth and what they are worth correlates with reliability. They also need to communicate the effective reliability to the patient.

Instead they charge something like a thousand dollars for less than an hour of their time for a false yes or no diagnosis.

There can be more than one problem at once. Two different solutions can be tried at the same time.

This doesn't acknowledge anything I just wrote.

You said blaming corp buyers is a distraction from NIMBYISM. I'd argue corp buyers are a problem as well as NIMBYISM. Both should get blamed and be addressed.

In fact, it's the opposite: corp buyers are associated with declining rents. I don't care what happens with them either way, they're a second-order factor, but most of what people are saying about this phenomenon is just wrong.

Not all lobby groups are asking for harmful things. But nearly always they act in their own short sighted self interest. Which usually comes at the expense of citizens or the would be customers or competitors.

Which is why sane countries make paying for access and influence illegal.

This assumes the regeneration is deterministic, or at least its output no worse than what it's replacing.

Yeah, the assumption is that it eventually will be the same or better. It's basically how this software was created, he seems to have made a few different versions before he was happy.

Has any nuclear state had their leader kidnapped? Or seen significant incursions?

Most non-nuclear heads of state have never had their leader kidnapped, either.

Surprising to see it bottom out so hard.

I imagine at least some of the leveling off could be due to question saturation. If duplicates are culled (earnestly or overzealously) then there will be a point where most of the low hanging fruit is picked.

Interesting. Still, original intent aside, the audience will draw their own comparisons and develop their own take aways.

IMO that's fine because art isn't a one way street. Audiences also play a role in how it's interpreted and what happens to it in private and once copyright and trademark expire.

Doesn't the word "coincidental" imply Vince Gilligan is OK with the anti AI take? He's not denying it's there, he's saying it's not intentional, it's coincidental.

I agree with "art isn't a one way street". But, it's also up to the artist whether people's interpretation is "right" or "wrong". Some artists love when people find meaning in their work that wasn't intentional, and some don't.

One story that's burnt into my brain, is about Ray Bradbury giving a guest lecture. This is meant to be a quote from Bradbury. It's hard to know what's real these days.

From "Listen to the Echoes: The Ray Bradbury Interviews"

"Weller: have you encounted academic misinterpretation of your work?

Bradbury: I was lecturing at Cal Fullerton once and they misinterpreted Fahrenheit 451, and after about half an hour of arguing with them, telling them that they were wrong, I said, “Fuck you.” I've never used that word before, and I left the classroom.'"

I think it's fine to read Fahenheit 451 and have your own opinions about its main theme, but, it's another thing to get into an argument with the author about it.

Bradbury said Fahenheit 451 is about the effect of mass media on society, if it was written today, it might be about the effect of AI on society.

Small subs are more diverse and accommodating IME. Worse than popular though are flaired-only subs. They are so heavily moderated that posting feels like an exercise in guess-the-unspoken rules.