May be an unpopular take, but I think the main risk of ML is not that it's good at what it does.
It's actually very bad, worse than humans by far at what it does. But because people collectively believe it is good at stuff, people are focusing so much on "the singularity" or "it replacing [x job]" the real risk continues unhindered.
This is a good example of the true goal of ML: introduce bias and inefficiency in areas where inefficiency is desirable to capitalism.
https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/11/ai-with-90-error-rate-forces-elderly-out-of-rehab-nursing-homes-suit-claims/
What to do with the Democrats: They want to do it? Let's make them do it.
Do you eat breakfast?
And by "breakfast", I mean the first meal of the day, and actual food (coffee, tea, and juice, don't count as food but smoothies do)
Please boost for a wider demographic! 🙏
Relevant for the idea of "lean in" feminism and allowing women and minorities in board rooms, I'm currently based in the UK (normally, Denmark) and the government here is a case in point: Is Rishi Sunak as PM a victory for anti-racism and inclusivity?
No, that's not a victory for anything. Sunak may be non-white, but what matters is that he's *posh*. Inclusivity would, in the UK, mean letting people in who are not upper class. More precisely, who are not *rich:*.