No, that’s not true. Universities have been making their own models. Private individuals have been making their own models. The most famous ones are, of course, purely corporate. But claiming that the tech is inseparable from the corporation is demonstrably incorrect.

Evo 2 was recently used in a revolutionary antibiotic research paper, which is entirely open source and trained and public data. Is that also corporate?

Probably. The system is broken. But let’s not blame a mindless, emotionless chemical for how it is being abused and misused. Throw rocks at the assholes causing harm, not the needle laying in the street.

This is wildly incorrect. If by AI you mean exclusively modern LLMs, then it would effectively halt quite a lot of modern research, including virology, epidemiology, physics, materials sciences, and many more.

If by AI you mean the actual definition of AI, then you can say goodbye to the Internet as we know it today. Translation services, fraud protection, GPS, 99.9% of all software development, etc. nobody had a problem with AI ~5 years ago. Those exact same algorithms are now flagged as evil because people misunderstand what they’re even complaining about.

The impossibility of removing the Internet is identical to the impossibility of removing AI. Or, if you use the incorrect term to mean LLMs exclusively, then say goodbye to quite a lot of critical modern research. I hope you don’t like antibiotics, because there was a recent breakthrough that used Evo 1 and Evo 2, both LLMs trained on genome data.

Me, an ADHD sufferer, “Yeah, meth is terrible. But please don’t try to ban amphetamines universally.”

The same can be said about LITERALLY every technology ever made. Everything you listed is real, problems that need to be addressed, and the companies responsible for exacerbating them held accountable.

A technologies worst implementations are not representative of its usefulness.

Unless you want to ban the entire field of biology as well for the atrocities committed associated with it.

Same actually. But I later discovered the reason why I don’t like raw onions is because I have an allergy that gives me migraines when I eat them. Cooking them is fine and delicious though.

But yeah, used to be teased incessantly by family for being “Picky.”

No, that’s not how that works. Your own personal experience is fine and valid, but try not to make the assumption it’s true for anyone else.

POGO POGO POGO POGO POGO POGO POGO!

Only because the boundary has been set to include genuine adults. That boundary SHOULD be pushed.

Sure, I’m not against that at all. I hate advertisements and would take no issue with a universal ban. My problem was with the arbitrary moral outrage at this advertisement targeting “Children,” by virtue of the utterly meaningless phrase “Under Age,” which includes actual, legitimate adults, in the US.

Sure, but the primary complaint was against a 0% alcohol beer targeted at “Children” by nature of using the term “Under Age.” I have no complaints against wanting to remove advertising, in general, including drug advertisements.

Below drinking age, sure. I think the nonsense here is that the US considers you “Under age” until you’re 21. So you’re complaining about an ad targeting children, when the target is literally “Anybody under the age of 21.” Which is an unfair complaint to make.

Because using that same logic, “under age” porn is actually legal. Because at 18 you can get fucked in the ass by 3 dudes at once, but not buy a beer.

I hear you say “But there are different ages for X and Y.” Yeah, but it’s the exact same term used to mean the same idea with completely different ranges and neither has any justification beyond “Uh… Here’s the cut-off I guess?”

Would you take issue with 18yr olds having beer ads aimed at them? Because that’s technically “Under Age Beer!” And they’d be considered full adults here in Germany.

Except the US concept of underage also includes people 16 to 20, which this ad is undoubtedly target towards. If it was an ad for beer with bright colours and cartoon characters I would agree, but it is not.

So 19yr olds shouldn’t be advertised to? What’s the cut off?

I actually fully agree that all advertisement is awful and support removing it entirely.

But lacking that, I don’t see an issue with advertising universally. And if we’re going to restrict advertisement to children, target actual children. “Teenagers” includes people legally old enough to join the military and kill other humans.

I’m pretty sure young and impressionable children get used to the idea of drinking beer from friends and family. I think the bigger issue is that the drinking age is fucking 21. It’s absolutely nonsense. If you want to protect children from alcohol abuse, talk to them, teach them, let them have alcohol when they’re ready to try it, in safe settings.

Fair enough, no further comments.

Who are you giving advice to? I don’t think Bernie can hear you, and even if he could, I’m 99% sure he would passionately explain precisely why you’re wrong and the methodology behind his decision.

Sure, but the logic reveals literally nothing. I can create an entire Sims world for the sole reason to see if the “turn pink clothing in to green clothing” mod works. Does the fact that their existence had a reason actually mean a damn thing?

What you want to be normal and what is actually normal are not the same thing. Regardless of best wishes, it actually is normal in a shocking number of places. Unless you’re referring exclusively to the small social circle you live in, but that’s not really a useful data point for us to discuss, because it’s not what the conversation is actually about.

Hey peeps, I’m pretty sure they’re reacting to the SECOND “normal” statement, not the first.