The only things they did wrong was not collecting user feedback from the beginning and not starting as a slow rollout just like they did with dalle 2 but that could have hampered the popularity. Other than this I'm not sure what are trying to say here and what else were they supposed to do.

>The best way to save the planet is for all of us to live in self-sustaining communes in rural areas. You going to volunteer to do that?

I never proposed or supported that solution. What I propose is the middle ground between not fucking the planet anymore and not hindering our civilisation.

>Or are you just trying to force your lifestyle on others because it costs you nothing?

If choices of other people endanger my safety, safety of others or the enviroment I live in I have the right to demand them change their lifestyle because your freedom ends where my freedom starts. Cars don't have some God-given space in the city - they were allowed in and now they should be expelled out. People having freedom to choose isn't a good argument against this because people aren't known for choosing what's good for them and the fact that the pandemics has been going for almost 3 years is a good testament to this.

Edit: if someone gets here at some point - he blocked me.

You assume that people don't want to live in the city centers while also assuming they have a choice. They don't. You guys there cannot try out how it is to not have to have a car because most of your cities are hard to get around without one. If someone wants to live in the suburbs - ok, but make them pay according to the costs they generate. You'll see how quickly shit changes. Also "you can't people do x" - we have to make people do stuff because we have to unfuck the natural enviroment. The changes will take time but they are needed. Obviously best way would be to incentivize people instead of forcing them.

>The average American commutes 41 miles per day

And that's the problem. That's way too much. Problem of cars isn't simply about cars but about all of the infrastructure that is built around them. You could fill those huge parking lots in the city centers with housing and cut down distance from work place by a lot. Those huge highways in the city centers also take a lot of space which could be better utilised. It's not about just about banning cars and saying "fuck everyone who needs them". It's about making sure that as little people as possible actually need them.

If you really need one you can buy but you won't be able to enter denser parts of the city (or it will cost you). You are trying to undermine the whole concept by bringing edge cases which have nothing to do with what most people need. Those who live in the city mostly work in the city. Those who NEED a car regardless of public transportation available are a cery small subset of those who have a car.

Car sharing

It's a common strawman on the part of carbrains to say that banning cars means complete ban on cars. Nobody says that. Cars are to be banned from cities. No one is going to take away cars from people living in rural areas.

Most people already live in cities

I think prions could already be considered offensive proteins.

Humanity solves AGI! It turns out we only needed to include "Answer like as if you were AGI" at the end of the prompt!

This sounds quite analogical to running Doom on a Samsung smart fridge or running a Turing Machine in Power Point. It's not useful but definitely pretty cool.

Do you get paid in crypto? Do you buy food in crypto? Could you live for the rest of your life without touching money because you can buy every product in crypto? If an answer to any of those questions is yes - are you actually using crypto or is there an intermediary which actually converts it and gives you a false sense of existence of crypto economy?

It is circulation but it's not currency circulation in the economy when most of it is buying and selling the damn thing because of speculation.

You did something more of a barter trade. This crypto isn't going to be spent by the next party but sold on the exchange. No circulation in the economy.

This doesn't prove that it's money - only that someone agreed to exchange something else. Real money has economy in which it circulates as a means of exchanging work (putting aside things like speculation for the sake of simplicity). You only made the exchange you made because the other party had a way to sell crypto you gave them.

*to squeez money out of suckers. Crypto itself isn't and never will be money because of unavoidable built-in flaws and the fact that everyone uses it like a casino.

Why do we have to go over that fact that copy if the brain is not the original. All this "mind uploading" and "brain preservation for recreation in the future" has been proven to be bullshit since it was thought up. It doesn't matter if the copy is indistinguishable from me if the main person interested in me not dying - that is me - has died.

There will always be a place for artists creating for the sake of creating BUT market for creating on demand by human artists will shrink to a fraction of current size. Current models are just tools but that will not be true for the future ones. What you said is another variation of "humans will never automate themselves out of work because AI is just another tool for work not a replacement for worker". If you tried to estimate if this statement is true by analysing past changes (first agricultural revolution, industrial revolution) then you may think it would be true but the reason is that you wrongly assumed that past past performance is indicative of future results while it's not. A year ago without hiring an artist if I wanted some digital drawing of something I wouldn't be able to get it unless it was already available on the internet - today I can just start up SD and make what I want. It's not perfect and requires loads of tweaking but I am technologically literate so with enough time I can get satysfying results. I am not able to create anything but still a large chunk of my potential artistic needs has been fullfilled without direct input of an actual artist. Moving forward tech literacy needed to use those tools will go down while possibilities will go up. There will be a point where human artists making custom works will only have a job not because an AI will be worse but because some people will specifically request a work made by a human. There may be no upper limit to human creativity but this implies there will also be no limit to AI "creativity".

And before you say "long time" again: this is where AI image generation was in 2014. Unlike much of this sub I do not share the optimism of AGI before 2040 and other impossible timelines but it is ignorant to not take into account that the field of image generation moves fast and will probably continue to do so and unlike eg. language models you can already run it on middle range hardware.

Learning how to use it is the current state of things, not the future one. Future AI will be able to nail the image in one go with only barrier being how well you can explain your vision.

Artists won't be redundant. Artists for hire will be though.

It's definitely not helping them get out of poverty. Driving a car in London is basically asking for problems.

Putting aside the fact that the fee should be scaled with earnings - it's almost like as if cars weren't that good and there was a viable alternative called public transport. Metal boxes on wheels cause cities more costs then this fee will ever give back. Having a car costs a lot and if you are poor and have one it only keeps you in poverty. If you want equality then we can ban all driving in city centers - I am all for it.

At least it would be equal.

Two words: Transsiberian Railway

AI won't kill art. It will kill art for profit eventually. This is the main difference which "AI is killing culture" folks fail to comprehend. Yes, it will suck for some time for the artist until we get UBI going or full automation.

Hydrogen is inefficient, hard to store/transport and requires complex infrastructure. Overhead electric is the best for trains.