Openness isn’t just a nice to have. It is essential.

The difference between general purpose computing and gatekept walled garden computing is night and day.

Identifying the devs is not in the “need to know” for Google. Google sells or helps to sell a general purpose open device where it is on us to exploit that device however we will.

Now Google wants to switch to a walled garden, moderated development model.

If Google promises it won’t use those dev IDs to moderate development, their promise is only worth the wind it moves and the sound it makes.

Bias is inevitable.

It makes no sense to work to eliminate it.

It’s like trying to breed a new species of humans that are void of preferences. An impossible task. If such a breeding process somehow succeded, the resulting product would not be a human anyway.

If anyone claims to be unbiased themselves, or claims freedom from bias for someone else, even just implying that someone somewhere is unbiased, I immediately know bullshit is afoot. Such claims are not always knowingly malicious, but are always detrimental to my interests should I start foolishly believing them.

How indeed. It’s probably a multi-factor phenomenon which requires an anthropological study for a serious answer. (Good luck trying to get the necessary access to study them.) My guess for one factor in this, is that they have more money than they know what to do with.

My use case for AI is to get it to tell me water to cereal ratios, like for rice, oatmal, corn meal. If there is a mistake, I can easily control for it, and it’s a decent enough starting point.

That said, I am just being lazy by avoiding taking my own notes. I can easily make my own list of water to cereal ratios to hang on the fridge.

Crypto is a solution looking for a problem.

The people behind crypto never studied the history of the gold standard.

Crypto is a ponzi scheme virtual asset, not a currency.