That’s a fair point, improving the subscription feed would be in their best interest for the people who use it, even if that number is low.

The problems with that feed which he touched on in the video are pretty significant. If you subscribe to channels that put out lots of content and ones that rarely do, it becomes much harder to use.

One thing he didn’t mention is also that it’s not conducive to discovering and gradually catching up on the back catalogue of a new channel, which is something the home feed excels at.

I’m sure YouTube prefers you use the home feed and has no plans to improve subscriptions, and there are real issues with it, so it’ll probably continue to decline.

I have such a hard time getting used to “positive anymore”

I’m kinda far left myself, I think capitalism is a pretty cool guy

The politics community on world is even more rabid and unconstructive than the Reddit equivalent

yes a decentralized federated community is very aligned with tankies totally

You’re on lemmy.ml now, the worst part of it is the militant liberals from world coming here trying to feel smug. That’s about the worst I’ve seen at least.

I didn’t think your point was as shallow as “different people can have different opinions”

I fail to see how this invalidates that someone can hold both the position that current AI is a waste of electricity and pumping out garbage while pointing out the potential social and economic disruption of future iterations of the technology.

If your point was simply that some people hold one position, others hold the other, and others still hold both. Then… thanks? I think we can also call this a waste of electricity.

It seems you’re firmly entrenched and going out of your way to see a contradiction. I’ll let you be.

Consider that there’s no widespread double-think happening and it could just be in your own head at this point.

The cars that replaced horses were several iterations in, early “automobile” devices included steam powered carriages that moved slower than walking.

A technology may start with limited usage while still having lots of potential.

Technologies are always useless until they’re not.

Agreed. I’ve been following the technology of neural networks and generative AI since before LLMs were the new hotness and it’s fascinating and powerful stuff.

My qualms with what’s happening now are more about how we organize our economy and society. Rushing them to market, aggressively trying to cull workers, etc. are critiques of capitalism not AI. In a different world we would all be excited about the prospect of having to work less and reap the benefits of AI, but we wouldn’t be reopening coal plants and leaving people to starve on the street.

Early cars weren’t a threat to streetcars and trains and urban planning but modern cars have reshaped every North American city. You can criticize the inefficiency, poor quality, energy waste, etc. of the technology today while also pointing out the dangers of tomorrow.

are those competing?

It’s being rushed to market and is still very inefficient, but part of the reason it’s being rushed to market is because companies are getting ahead of themselves about the opportunity to fire human employees.

oh competely agreed, I’m just pointing out the dishonest framing by politicians and pundits

but how will we pay for <anything that’s not increased military spending>???

talk about social services and taxes are like a bake sale, talk about funding war and it’s what you describe

Government spending doesn’t work like your bank account. Instead of just letting banks invent money through fractional reserve banking the government can pay for these kinds of essential services with new money. Taxation isn’t like having a bake sale so you can afford to buy things, it’s one way for money to be drawn out of the economy so that inflation is controlled.

Yes some taxes raise money proportional to some other spending and are ear-marked for that, but notice how no new taxes had to be introduced to give tens of billions to Ukraine and Israel?

The government can pay for public services.

Nah fewer bad people in the world is better medicine

I’m referring to people talking about the trolley problem, defense, war, etc.

When it comes to killing the CEO I’m not gonna argue it because your position is valid.

I agree it’s “wrong” but I won’t hide my smile, I wouldn’t be sad about some other similar incidents either.

When there is no justice, there can be no peace.

Yes but now you’re discussing nuance whereas in your replies to everyone else you’re making a blanket statement that murder is always wrong.

You can’t reject other peoples’ nuanced arguments with a blanket statement then retreat to making your own when confronted.

Your POV is valid, and I’m not telling you you’re wrong to believe it, but you haven’t been engaging with others in good faith.

you haven’t responded to the myriad comments pointing out when we feel it’s justified to kill someone, like defending yourself and others or at times of war.

So, what’s your stance?