Also… ja, auch. Aber die FDP gibt sich technologieoffen, “ideologiefrei” und ja: progressiv.

Das heiß dann halt girlboss-feminismus, Regenbogen-Kapitalismus und Flugtaxis.

SPD, the Greens and FDP: “If we win the Bundestag, Bundesrat and Cancellorship, we’ll definetly implement progressive politics.” ;)

Counterexamples: Netflix without ads, Gamepass, Tinder.

If that seems “smartypants” to you, your intellectual standards are set pretty damn low.

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t insult me. The smartypants part was that you "um-actually"d me. Not that you stated something too “intellectual”.

I never said “that’s because of enshittification”. I said “that’s enshittification”. My statement didn’t contain any description of causal effects.

Only if it’s that kind of smartypants criticism.

Do you commonly criticize comments that don’t issue a historical paper on the background of a meme?

I’m giving the name of a process. When someone asks for the title of a book, I don’t start with Guttenberg’s printing press.

I’d say that pricing is part of the deal which can get worse. Claiming that it’s not enshittification is useless nitpicking, IMHO.

How?

I was giving a name to a specific feature of capitalism and you were all “umm actually”-ing me that I’m talking about capitalism.

That’s like:

Me: “I really like this chocolate croissant” You: “Actually, you’re talking about a pastry 🤓”

“You’re not talking about Sprite, but about sugary soft drinks” <- that’s you

Enshittification is a feature of capitalism, smartass.

The word he’s describing is called “enshittification”.

where we should be discussing about seizing the new means of production instead of denying its existence

Look at what OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, etc. Does and tell me once again that this is supposedly good for the workers. Jeez. 🙄

Ok, so you just ignore the reports and continue to coast on feels over reals. Cool.

Another report contradicting you

Stop believing the hype. Sam Altman is lying to you.

Law = rules. Action A is legal. Action B isn’t. Doing X + Y + Z constitutes action A and so on. Legal arguments have to abide by all rules of logic. Law is one of the most logic heavy fields out there.

You’re ignoring the whole Job of a judge, where they put the actions and laws into a procedural, historical and social context (something which LLMs can’t emulate) to reach a verdict.

You know what’s way closer to “pure logic”? Programming? You know what’s the quality of the code LLMs shit out? It’s quite bad.

Debating definitions here is useless however, as the end result speaks for itself.

Yes, it does speak for itself: They can’t.

Yes, the exams are flawed. This podcast episode takes a look at these supposed AI lawyers.

I also don’t agree with your assessment. If an LLM passes a perfect law exam (a thing that doesn’t really exist) and afterwards only invents laws and precedent cases, it’s still useless.

The legal system does not revolve around logic and even it it was: LLMs can’t reason, so they’d be useless, anyways.

Old man yells at cloud.jpeg

Yeah. Certified PDF.

Wait, you got shunned cause of Drake? Because of all that stuff that got public with the Kendrick beef (being a pdf-file and all that), or did I miss something else?