I think we're already in it. A world war, as I understand it, is basically just a situation where a variety of alliances and tensions build up until when a war erupts in one spot it rapidly spreads around to involve a large number of countries world-wide. That seems to be the case already, you can easily build a Pepe Silvia wall-of-crazy showing all the connections between Russia and China and Iran and Syria and Israel and Hungary and Ukraine and Belarus and the United States and Taiwan and on and on. The actual shooting pew pew warfare is still relatively confined (though bear in mind that literally a million Russian casualties have happened over a thousands-of-kilometers-long front line riddled with trenches and minefields, which is pretty significant) but all these countries are throwing their weight in on those fights and it's easy to imagine them branching out quite quickly when conditions change.

There's a famous literary analysis essay about this, The Death of the Author, that argues for the latter. I happen to strongly believe this view.

I decide what a work of fiction means to me, and since it's a work of fiction there is no "higher" meaning than that. Other people can of course present their ideas about what it means, and if I like those ideas I'll adopt them into my own thoughts on the matter. The creator can be one of those "other people" but he gets no special role in the argument; he has to make his case just like anyone else and I feel free to say "no, that's dumb. I think it means something else."

Sure, not disputing that. I'm more annoyed by the double standard regarding his successful decisions.

No, just surprised about how uninformed and knee-jerk those opinions are.

In my experience, it's likely that some of those downvotes come from reflexive "AI bad! How dare you say AI good!" Reactions, not anything specific to mental health. For a community called "technology" there's a pretty strong anti-AI bubble going on here.

What I mean is that when Musk-owned companies have successes people are very often quick to accuse him of "just hiring smart people" or "just buying a successful company." It's only when those companies have failures that he gets credit for being hands-on in their design decisions.

Don't get me wrong, I think Elon Musk is a pretty terrible person both in terms of his personality and his politics. But pretty terrible people can nevertheless be smart and make good engineering decisions. Just look at von Braun as a prime example.

Always interesting to see the view of the degree of Elon Musk's involvement in his companies' decisions swing depending on whether the outcome is good or bad.

They are using them, however. They're visiting websites with them, using apps with them, and so forth.

If they don't then someone else will.

Ah, this is that Daenerys bot story again? It keeps making the rounds, always leaving out a lot of rather important information.

The bot actually talked him out of suicide multiple times. The kid was seriously disturbed and his parents were not paying the attention they should have been to his situation. The final chat before he committed suicide was very metaphorical, with the kid saying he wanted to "join" Daenerys in West World or wherever it is she lives, and the AI missed the metaphor and roleplayed Daenerys saying "sure, come on over" (because it's a roleplaying bot and it's doing its job).

This is like those journalists that ask ChatGPT "if you were a scary robot how would you exterminate humanity?" And ChatGPT says "well, poisonous gasses with traces of lead, I guess?" And the journalists go "gasp, scary robot!"

Meanwhile, Europe is pursuing replacements for Ukraine. Obviously none as good as Starlink and there'll be a rough time in the switchover, but Musk is not the only source for this kind of service.

And in the meantime, by merely making this statement Musk has doomed Starlink to never be seriously considered again as a provider for critical services like this elsewhere in the world.