I think he was just imminently concerned about their safety. Like the post suggests, many thought desperate times were coming and any rando in a maga hat might retaliate.
DR_Hero
joined 1 year ago
I hear eugenists say "there's not enough people" in place of "we need more specially white folk so the uneducated colored don't replace us" far far more often, see Elon musk and the like.
I've actually only ever heard "there's too many people" come from anti capitalists.
At least the same company developed both in that case. As soon as a new open source AI model released, Elon just slapped it on wholesale and started charging for it
At this point I'm pretty sure their strategy is to take the hit in search engine quality since they have a stranglehold there anyway, and spam everyone with AI so they can come out ahead on that front with Human feedback. It's pretty shitty, and the exact reason we would be taking down big tech monopolys.
It's a dream I considered many times. It can be cheaper* than land life.
I was thinking more trying to avoid lawsuits based on further cementing their monopoly in adspace.
Being the world's leading advertiser and the only browser 90% of people use gives them way too much control. There's no path to privacy with chrome that doesn't end with Google as the sole gatekeeper. I mean, they already are the gatekeeper, but the current rate of lawsuits seems like an acceptable cost of doing business.
I'm confused as to what your point is
Collective mass arbitration is my favorite counter to this tactic, and is dramatically more costly for the company than a class action lawsuit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/business/arbitration-overload.html
A lot of companies got spooked a few years back and walked back their arbitration agreements. I wonder what changed for companies to decide it's worth it again. Maybe the lack of discovery in the arbitration process even with higher costs?
There's a much more accurate stat... and it's disgusting