This problem must be solved immediately! AI was meant to spread NATO talking points!

I rarely have something good to say about Dutch tax policy, but fuck yes!

Two things I found interesting:

Effects are concentrated among users who seek direct solutions: Persistence costs were concentrated among participants who prompted AI to solve tasks for them directly. Using AI for hints or clarifications did not produce significant impairments.

So that's a major caveat.

Another interesting thing would be to know if this is an AI effect specifically, or a technical aid effect generally. For instance, would a calculator produce similar results?

Yes please. ¡OTAN no, bases fuera!

I'm also not thrilled about the obsession with copyright. I was against copyright in the 90s. I was against copyright in the 2000s. I was against copyright in the 2010s. And now these people want to call integrity lack of ethics just because I'm not willing to endorse yet another extension to a legal monopoly forbidding me from running arbitrary algorithms on data supposedly owned by someone else?

I'm sympathetic to the environmental arguments. Though I also would point out there are much greater areas of marginal waste to cut on. Online advertising uses more energy than AI. I look forward to the day it's banned.

But the whole "we're going to play pretend that I can ban you from transposing text I wrote through a matrix" thing? Absolutely not. Nothing good comes out of that.

There are a few.

WIPO and juridical infra around it like TRIPS.

Energy Charter Conference (and the treaty it's based on, the ECT).

OSCE: European "regional security" org.

UNCITRAL: codification of international trade practices and dispute resolution.

IAEA: it's meant to make nuclear power available to everyone, in practice it does iffy spying for Western powers.

Would have to think a bit harder, there are more.

But probably the ones on this thread are the major ones.

Is the EU deliberately designing an inferior tech stack for itself or something?

On one hand, eurobonds are sensible policy. A currency issuer will benefit from better rates than smaller sub-units.

On the other hand, the annoyance that this is the thing that's finally forcing them to do it... that's kind of fucked.

Is it me or this plan is just unhinged? Not just politically bad, or imbalanced, or whatever. But actually fantastical, not meant for implementation. In fact I can't think of anyone who'd accept it, not the zionists either. It seems headline-driven policy. It's just intended to make noise.

At least Oslo was shitty but conceivably workable for some values of workable.

This is talking about tariffs and SEZs in the middle of rubble.

Translation sets a certain distance between you and the work, that is inevitable. But so does time, for example. Should you not read anything from earlier than the 1950s because language has changed?

Good news on nuclear, awful news on gas, but considering the German fake energy transition is powered by it, it's perhaps inevitable.

Also this just annoyed me more than it should:

Nuclear power is a carbon-free source of electricity but it is not typically labeled as green energy, like solar, wind and other renewables. Generating power this way requires mining and processing uranium to create nuclear fuel, an energy-intensive process that produces emissions.

Unlike wind turbines and solar panels, which are made from butterfly shine and faery sighs.

My understanding is that Firefox can't generate and store them by itself, it needs some other mechanism.