Monk fruit is quite expensive, so I'm afraid it will not become very popular in commercial products like candy bars and soft drinks. But for DIY it is certainly a nice option.
I'm just gonna address the first one, don't necessarily disagree with the rest:
> Callous disregard of lost jobs, disinformation, mental health issues / deaths, IP theft, environmental cost, skill atrophy
ChatGPT is a tool that changed people's lives. OpenAI released something that wasn't perfect, for free, and forced all their competitors to release these products publicly.
You can't stop technological progress to protect old jobs, or because you are afraid people are gonna misuse it. I'm fascinated how many grown adults want to be treated like children their whole lives, but more nefariously, they want to impose this on others who want more freedom and agency.
As for IP "theft", all I'm gonna say is: fuck intellectual property as a concept and the whole parasitic industry that grew around it. The only contribution of IP has been to stifle innovation and set our civilization back by decades. Making IP obsolete and unenforceable has been one of the best things to come out of LLMs and one of the great catalysts of the scientific, technological, and creative advancements that are coming in the near future. For that alone, Sam Altman deserves a statue, no matter what his other flaws are.
It's not about stopping change, it's about a blithe, uncaring attitude about how it affects other people, along with empty assurances of UBI and abundance that we are unlikely to see / distribute broadly. People expect to get shafted and I don't blame them for worrying when you look what happened to the Rust Belt, coal miners in Appalachia, etc.
IP can hurt or help depending on the industry - how do you enable R&D-heavy industries like pharma to recoup costs over time without something like this? I don't see how you incentivize innovation without the concept but I'm open to reforms like not resetting patent timelines for minor tweaks, etc.
It's one thing when a bill on technology is misunderstood by regulators and insiders provide context on unintended consequences, another when checks are written such that the voice of polluting industries outweighs voters' desire for clean air and water.
If nearly everyone is already covering subsistence needs directly or via assistance (SNAP, food banks), why would UBI cause inflation? the only thing changing is who buys it
How are those the same? You're comparing exclusively star athletes and the general public - many of whom might have jobs in fields not of their choosing, be underpaid, doing grunt work, etc. It's rare to have a high paying, interesting job with good working environment. As another commenter mentioned, it can devolve into status games as well, which is off-putting.
What a world it would be if people were more open to introspecting, figuring out their motivations, and changing their behavior accordingly. So many people living in reaction to societal influences, not really asking if advice is true or even aligns with their ends.
They're different questions but I wouldn't put the onus on the respondent because it's ambiguous, perhaps tactically so, since it's gauche to ask the latter, at least as stated. That way you can still prime the question but have plausible deniability.
reply