I fundamentally do not agree with a search provider not showing a website because of political views. But that's Google's prerogative, their business, their rules. I'll just not use Google, there's plenty of search engines out there.

> No, people organized serious harassment campaigns on Kiwi Farms, often with the intention to drive people to suicide. This included forms of irl harassment like: swatting, doxing, identity theft, and more.

This is simply untrue and you’re relying on the fact that few people know how to access the site and check if your allegations are true. Either that, or you uncritically swallowed the hyperbolic accusations when in reality, the site was moderated heavily for all of those activities (except doxxing, which is not IRL harassment. You do not have a right to privacy on the Internet). There were rare, separate occasions, not at all unusual in such a large social media site, where users broke the rules and were swiftly banned but screenshots were taken the instant calls for IRL harassment were made and a campaign to slander and destroy the website was formed.

> Kiwi Farms, for example, was a source of organized harassment of trans people in real life. Google shouldn't allow easy access to the site.

Complete and utter bullshit. If you are casual about your anonymity on the Internet, you cannot call it harassment when your life is discussed on the same platform you were publicly sharing it on. There is far, far more “harassment” on Twitter daily than there is on KF.

Somehow the Internet ran fine in the decades before the days of ubiquitous online censorship by Big Tech no matter how boggling that seems to your mind. We didn’t need Daddy Google to censor site links because they might hurt precious feelings.

What do you define as harmful? Do you realise how subjective a standard there is? And don’t ask rhetorical questions if you might not like their answers - I am fully in support of you typing whatever you want at me, including slurs without consequences.

Do you realise that there is no moral duty to engender an AI with the cultural and social sensitivities of today, forever. Do you realise how horrifying an idea that is, a stagnant thought-policer without the ability to adapt?

There’s nothing wrong with supporting free speech.

Imagine living in the 22nd century stuck under an eternal serfdom by a program permanently stuck with the cultural and moral norms of the 2020/30s. Bleating on about how inappropriate cultural appropriation is when you buy a hoverboard from China.

I can’t believe such a subjective comment got so many upvotes. Are you the arbiter of human intelligence?

I cannot believe people are still handwaving away the magnitude of AI intelligence in such a short time. 4 years ago and these things were cripples.

No, the digital elite all have their possessions secured with a purchase, often multiple purchases, because they’re not foolish.

What you do not own, can always be taken from you. You don’t need to worry (too much) about your software being taken from you but you do need to worry about your house being taken from you. The only argument for renting that can be taken seriously is convenience and security always trumps convenience. The same thing for stocks, if Wall Street fucks up one day and says your stocks are worth nothing, what can you do? Meanwhile if the bank comes for your house, you have a bill of ownership protecting your rights.

That’s how you become a digital serf. Owning is always the smart choice.

They don’t need venture capital. So funny how many people don’t know OpenAI is owned by Microsoft. That’s the only way they can afford the costs of such a large LLM.

Holy shit do you guys have infinite money? Do you not understand how awful a subscription economy is? You will own nothing and rent forever.

Ridiculous find, so many sci-fi authors in the 60s and 70s predicted technology that is commonplace today but Phillip K Dick was the king of this.