Look, it's okay man. You can play pretend with the other principled smart people in the dole line while the rest of us actually contribute to the economy. :) I just can't get over how clearly delusional you people are.

But I appreciate the horrific level of ill will you seem to enjoy hurling at a stranger

Why thank you, dinner tasted a little better than usual after reading this comment.

... Aren't open source projects supposed to share? And aren't AIs mostly trained off of open source code?

See, I think the people in this thread are mostly programmers who realize they're about to lose their jobs. Personally, I don't really care. I have real world objectives that need to be accomplished so I'm going to keep paying my API fees until the local models catch up. Maybe you guys should learn to swing a hammer or something. Lol, what a joke.

But even if he goes metaphorically vegan, his code is still going to feed the AIs.

If the social media platforms are the problem, then why control the devices and not the social media platforms? Makes no sense unless there's an ulterior motive.

It's an open standard that could lead to tighter controls on devices in the future. That's an extremely slippery slope. Wouldn't it make more sense to require age verification for social media platforms and outlaw online gambling? Why deanonymize the devices themselves? I suspect it has nothing to do with protecting children.

If I had to speculate, I think the people in power are scared of how much on-device AI could empower the masses and they're laying the groundwork to curtail it right now.

I know where you're coming from. I'd say it's algorithm driven and platform centric consumption that's bad. If things were more open, it'd be easier to use things like RSS readers to control your influences. The laws should be enforcing open standards, not closing things down.

These days a computer is pretty much another lobe of your brain. What happens when we actually have computers embedded inside of us? Are they going to restrict access to our own cognition?

It found that gen Z males (born 1997-2012) were twice as likely as baby boomer men (born 1946-1964) to have traditional views on decision-making within a marriage, with just 13% of men in the older cohort agreeing that a wife should always obey her husband. Among women, 18% of gen Z and 6% of baby boomers agreed.

Hmmm okay... So the author states that gen z women are three times more likely to adopt these conservative viewpoints, which means they are being converted at a higher rate than men.

“I think there are a lot of grievances, a lot of fear of men losing social positions,” Chung said. “And there’s a vacuum that’s being filled with rhetoric and voices which are trying to pitch young men against gender equality, against young women, against migrants.”

Such an opportunity for an interesting article examining why, but of course they completely gloss that over and frame it as men being egotistical and gullible.