zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
Johansson has money to hire lawyers and immediate access to media, so they backed off.

Altman and OpenAI will walk over everyone here without any difficulty if they decide to take whats ours.

>>nabla9+m8
I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops?

Why would people not want laws? The answer is so they can do the things that the laws prevent.

This is POSIWID territory [0]. "The purpose of a system is what it does". Not what it repeatedly fails to live up to.

What was the primary investment purpose of Uber? Not any of the things it will forever fail to turn a profit at. It was to destroy regulations preventing companies like Uber doing what they do. That is what it succeeded at.

The purpose of OpenAI is to minimise and denigrate the idea of individual human contributions.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

>>ecjhdn+1g
But like, Uber gave us taxis on our phones. No taxi company was going to do that without a force like Uber making them to it.

>>rockem+Jo
It also gave you cab drivers who don't earn enough to be able to replace their vehicles.

You can cheer on "forces" like Uber all you like but I would prefer it if progress happened without criminal deception:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak...

I don't see how anyone can read this and think the uber app is a net positive.