It’s not a matter of the state taking over things, the federal government is (hypothetically) stopping those funds regardless of what they do, so why wouldn’t they fund it themselves because all those things you mentioned still need to happen.
What are you talking about?
It was never AI. It was always cheap remote people working in foreign countries. But you would take that, and sell it as AI like they did?
All they had to do was run the tech alongside traditional cashiers. Make it known on entry, and your fine. No ethical concerns.
But what they did was sell tech they didnt have to shareholders to pump up the stock.
LTT be like…
Sure, but you still shouldn’t be selling the technology as actually working, instead of developing.
Amazon bought whole foods a while back. What would have stopped them from just collecting the data in their own stores, and then developed the tech?
Hint: shareholder value.
Your study has no control. So how do we know that’s the best way to get more out of people? The page linked doesn’t even specify what job types.
I’d still wager they’d be better served by better applications, not AI.
Also not the same person.
Forced overtime comes to an easier, cheaper mind.
But how better done depends on the field. Me, having a faster computer reduces compile time. So NOT having AI overhead on my machine is more important.
People could get tons of flows improved by not abusing Excell as a database.
I don’t know, there’s a lot of racism and anti-Semitism in those books as well. I mean the money obsessed long nose goblins? Cho Chang?
They’re good stories, but they do reflect the work of a fundamentally biggoted author.
How is that a not in my back yard?