Having an LLM do anyone's job for them is a bit of a cartoon example. There are very few jobs it can do in its entirety. It's about to what degree one uses it to help with their work. Nothing wrong with having assistance for as long as it actually helps you do your job better. I've had one solve multiple technical problems/questions for me but I still need to do the work myself because an LLM can't even turn a wrench.

Not that I spent much time thinking about it in the past but the belief in free will was something I was disillusioned from by hearing Sam Harris talk about it and then reading his book on the subject.

Now I believe there is just consciousness and its content. There is no "you" that's separate from this process that's authoring your decisions. Nah, everything follows from past events and the belief that you could have done otherwise is just an illusion. How could you have done otherwise. We already know what you did in this timeline. If we rewind back the universe without changing anything you'd just make the same choice again and again and again.

I'd say it has made me a much more empathic person overall. Hating someone for example is no longer compatible with my world view. Not liking, sure, but treating people as if they chose to be this way and could choose to be different but won't - that's bullshit.

Charles Whitman is a good example. Shot a bunch of people from a clock tower, left a suicide note saying he doesn't know why he does this and tells doctors to study his brain when he's dead. Well, they did and found a pecan-sized tumor near his amygdala that could very well explain this behaviour. Would you still hold Charles morally responsible after learning this? I wouldn't. I basically just live as if everyone has a brain tumor.

I don't see how the non-profit is relevant there. If it works then it works independent of who made it. I just don't think we're there yet. If you're stranded on a deserted island then maybe it'll do a better job keeping you sane than Wilson does but in its current form it's nowhere near the replacement for real human connection.

The suicide examples people love to bring up are not because the evil corporations made them such - it's an inherent flaw of the systems themselves.

Christmas and midsummer are the only ones I "celebrate" in any meaningful sense. Or at least used to. No point of celebrating much of anything when you're alone.

I didn't engage in politics on reddit because there was other content there. Here not so much.

Most people are fine with injustice for as long as it's happening to someone they don't like. It's the same kind of naïveté that makes someone advocate for policies that later get turned against them and it's like that possibility never even occurred to them. Vigilante justice being one of the best examples. Few actions demonstrate moral consistency more than defending someone you don't like when they're being mistreated.

Well yesterday I asked about near-extinct tree species that could survive in the climate I live in and when it gave me the names of those species I googled them to double check and to find out how much those cost. It pointed me in the right direction and I figured out the rest myself.

Started with ChatGPT and then switched to Grok. Probably would try Claude next if I were to switch again.

In my experience these systems aren't yet on a level that they could maintain a casual conversation that would in any way scratch the itch like talking with a human would. It's painfully obvious that you're talking to a bot. It's more like an autistic expert of every field that you can interview and it has endless patience to answer stupid questions and explore the nichest of topics.

However, this is also the worst they'll ever be so it's only a matter of time untill you can't tell it apart from a human.

I don't think so!

I still don't see what is being kept away from everyone else. Who is left without if I own a billion worth of stocks in different companies? The cartoon example would be me finding a cool rock that suddenly everyone in the village wants and I even get astronomically high purchase offers from the neighbouring villages but I choose to keep the rock to myself effectively making me the wealthiest person of the village - on paper. Is the rest of the village being deprived by that fact that I refuse to sell it and buy everyone a Lamborghini?

I'm only focusing on the hoarding part here. I don't understand what is being kept away from others. In the case of Elon, he owns shares in companies he founded. He's not a housing investor. What seems to be implied here is that if you start a company and it grows too large then it gets nationalized or something. These are the specifics I'm trying to figure out here. Is Norway's oil fund hoarding wealth away from the rest of the world? What you're speaking of sounds more like criticism of the power that wealth comes with, but that's not quite what's being discussed here either.

They’re hoarding it in value.

This is what I'm trying to get you to explain.

I'm gifted Mona Lisa, my net worth is now billion dollars. Am I hoarding billions in value?
I start a business and it becomes very succesful and it's valued in billions and as a majority shareholder it makes my net worth now a billion dollars. Am I hoarding billions in value?

I don't understand who is keeping what away from everyone else. What is being hoarded exactly? What is "value" here?

I sometimes waste uncopious amounts of time writing comments on Lemmy. I choose my words extremely carefully and fact check all the claims only to then be willfully misunderstood by someone who didn't even bother to read what it is that I actually said.

Make sense?

No because it doesn't answer my question. I asked about hoarding wealth - you're talking about spending habits. Your average billionaire can't just walk into a bank and withdraw, say 10 million. They probably don't have anything even close to that much of liquid wealth.

Already have thousands of times over. My ‘net worth’ is almost entirely due to my ownership stakes in Tesla and SpaceX. I have <0.1% that is cash. Tesla and SpaceX employees all receive stock/options and Tesla is >80% owned by retail investors and index/pension funds, so value increases apply >80% to them.

From Elon's twitter

That is not what I asked about, though. The claim was that they're hoarding money/wealth. This makes it sound like they have a lair full of chash somewhere like Scrooge McDuck.

Musk owns multiple succesful companies. His "wealth" is the value of these companies. You can't buy a house by stating you own SpaceX, they want cash.

I was also thinking that this is probably the bottom side of what ever it was. I wonder if there are satellite dishes like this that come flat packed and you need to assemble it.

Looks like a roof of a grain silo but it seems to be inverted. Also, doesn't look like it was ever watertight so I suspect it's probably something else.

Could someone for once please explain what you guys actually mean when you say the wealthy are hoarding money? I don't think I've ever gotten a straight answer to this.

I'd go as far as to claim that lying is virtually always unnecessary. People are quick to come up with examples where they think it's the right thing to do, yet when you ask these people when they themselves would rather hear lies than the truth I usually get nothing.

Lying to "not hurt someone" implies that you consider yourself a better judge of this person's ability to manage their emotions. That's not how you treat an adult, especially one you pretend to respect and care about.

However, not lying isn't synonymous with radical honesty either. No need to tell everything that's on your mind - just don't say something you know to not be true. If grandma's cooking isn't to your liking you probably don't need to insult her for it if she asks. I'm sure you can come up with something more diplomatic. If rudeness and insults are the "truth" then than perhaps reflects more on you than on them.