All of those would keep on existing if Meta died today, so who cares? Are you saying we have to keep permitting Meta to help governments oppress people and enable teen suicides just in case we get another React? that is silly
> All of those would keep on existing if Meta died today, so who cares
Try second order thinking or thinking into the future. This company that built much of the modern web and created trillions in value. It's like the communists that just nationalize companies and institutions after they come into power thinking that wealth is just something that spontaneously comes into existence and can be captured with no ill effects.
> permitting Meta to help governments oppress people
Oppressive governments often ban Meta and other social media. But somehow Meta helps these governments.
Try and create a consistent world view that doesn't devolve to [company] bad
Or, Meta disappears and all the talent goes to other places where it does other neat things that we all benefit from. We aren't going to accept that Meta has some magic that makes bright kids do better work.
banks protect your money so you don't have to keep it under your mattress and get easily stolen. governments build roads and give you clean water. what are you on about? you know Walden was a total lie right?
They aren't trusted in a vacuum. They're trusted when grounded in sources and their claims can be traced to sources. And more specifically, they're trusted to accurately represent the sources.
If you believe this, people believe everything they read by default and have to apply a critical thinking filter on top of it to not believe the thing.
I know I don't have as much of a filter as I ought to!
That checks out with my experience. I don't think it's just reading either. Even deeper than stranger danger, we're inclined to assume other humans communicating with us are part of our tribe, on our side, and not trying to deceive us. Deception, and our defenses against deception, are a secondary phenomenon. It's the same reason that jokes like "the word 'gullible' is written in the ceiling", gesturing to wipe your face at someone with a clean face, etc, all work by default.
15% of people aren't smart enough to read and follow directions explaining how to fold a trifold brochure, place it in an envelope, seal it, and address it
you think those people don't believe the magic computer when it talks?
“trusted” in computer science does not mean what it means in ordinary speech. It is what you call things you have no choice but to trust, regardless of whether that trust is deserved or not.
For one, it's not like we're at some CS conference, so we're engaging in ordinary speech here, as far as I can tell. For two, "trusted" doesn't have just one meaning, even in the narrower context of CS.
If I buy a pencil and draw a copyrighted character, is that copyright infringement? No. If I sell that drawing? Yes.
Midjourney and other AI companies are not selling you the drawing, they're selling you the pencil. What you do with that pencil and the drawings you create with that pencil is on you and you alone.
AI inputs are not outputs. Copyright exists at the output. You can't sue someone for reading every book in the library unless they try to sell one of them as their own.
most work in software jobs is not making one-off scripts like in your example. a lot of the job is about modifying existing codebases which include in-house approachs to style and services along with various third party frameworks like Spring driven by annotations, and requirements around how to write tests and how many. AI is just not very helpful here, you spend more time spinning wheels trying to craft the absolute perfect script than just making code changes directly.
