I would like to see if the use of their API increased.

😅 is this why I’m getting downvoted?

AI, or any other tool, isn’t intrinsically bad or oppressive. In my opinion, in this context, it would be more valuable to concentrate efforts towards better work legislation, rather than solely focusing on regulating AI (which needs to be done regardless).

The general sentiment towards AI in the comments is mixed. There are concerns about the potential negative impacts of AI, particularly on jobs and the economy, but also recognition of the benefits that AI can bring.

Main Points Pro AI:

1. AI can make life easier and more efficient, with examples given such as not needing to carry cash or visit a bank, and being able to read library books without going to the library.
2. AI can potentially solve problems and provide more tools for problem-solving.
3. Some people have jobs that wouldn’t exist without technology, including AI.
4. AI can automate mundane and repetitive tasks, freeing up humans to do more creative and complex work.

Main Points Against AI:

1. AI can lead to job displacement, with concerns that it will be used to replace human workers, particularly by the wealthy and corporations.
2. There are concerns about the potential for AI to be used to exploit the poor and increase wealth inequality.
3. Some people have had negative experiences with AI, such as in customer service or automated ordering systems.
4. There are fears that AI will be used by those in power to control and manipulate, rather than benefit, the average person.
5. There is a concern that the current economic system is not equipped to handle the changes that AI will bring, potentially leading to social and economic instability.

Main points against AI, specifically points #2 and #4, do appear similar. However, I believe these concerns can be alleviated if we, as average individuals, adapt AI into our own contexts. If our current roles could potentially be replaced by AI, we should strive to harness this technology to augment our work. We should take an active role and participate in the changes AI brings, rather than merely being subjects of these changes. While corporations may have access to AI on a larger scale, we too have access to this technology and can utilize it to our advantage. My frustration would stem from a lack of access to these tools, not from the changes they bring about.

While the potential misuse of highly personal information by private companies is indeed a concern, I believe we may be overlooking a key point that the article doesn’t fully address: Musk’s ambition to create a “super app”. I haven’t delved deeply into this concept, but I’ve pondered it a bit. The question that comes to mind is: why would someone choose to develop an app for Twitter instead of Android or iOS?

Apart from the obvious advantage of not having to develop for two separate platforms, there’s also the benefit of user identification. This, I believe, will be a major draw for many services. The ability to verify a user’s identity at the ID level, even down to their fingerprint, is a significant advantage. From a technical standpoint, it’s impressive, but consider the legal implications as well. It’s incredibly convenient for those offering sensitive services.

If this approach proves successful and attracts companies, government entities, and so on, and if Twitter becomes the platform where we can easily renew our driving licenses, pay municipal taxes, and handle other tedious tasks, would we be willing to exchange our personal data for such convenience? Perhaps those of us reading this comment wouldn’t, at least initially, but I suspect the majority of people would.

I don’t know how others are using chatGPT for coding, but I found I get the best results when starting small and iterate over the results few times. Like:

1. write a function to make a GET request;
2. write a function to handle this example JSON;
3. write a function that combines the first two;
4. etc etc

I use it mostly for Typescript, Bash and Clojure and results vary from good to OK (Clojure). The whole process is way faster if you use a tool like sGPT.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I agree that it might be pedantic to some, but I think it is important to strive for a clear message.

You also don’t have to follow an entirely vegan philosophy to follow a strict vegan diet.

That’s the point I wanted to make on my original comment.

Not to mention “100% plant based” implies you don’t eat fungi!

Yeah, my examples didn’t want to be the definitive nomenclature.

I’ve never said that the title is wrong, or the content is wrong. I just wanted to highlight that the focus should be on the “act” (eating) and not on the “being” (vegan vs not-vegan). The graph you’ve pasted would look friendlier if instead of saying “meat-eaters” … “vegans”, would say something like “high meat consumption” … “100% plant based”. Grouping the actions and not the people.

Better title “Eating meat creates four times more greenhouse gases than not eating meat”.