Rockstar co-founder [Dan Houser] compares AI to 'mad cow disease,' and says the execs pushing it aren't 'fully-rounded humans'
-
Strawman is arguing against a different argument than the one you are presenting.
I’m saying you’re not presenting an argument at all.
Cool. My argument is Dan Houser exploited employees when he worked at RGS.
-
When did the union busting happen?
When did the formation of an union discussion started?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Agreed. Moo.
-
-
That’s a statement, not an argument. If you’re going to start citing fallacies then I’m going to start expecting properly formed arguments.
-
That statement seems to be based exclusively on him being a union buster, despite the union busting happening 5 years after he left.
-
-
I don’t know, when?
-
Humanity and creativity are not on the CEO’s resumeé. Making shareholders happy by increasing profits and padding the CEO’s ego certainly is.
Making shareholders happy by increasing profits and padding the CEO’s egoTheft and corruption certainly is. -
-
That’s a statement, not an argument. If you’re going to start citing fallacies then I’m going to start expecting properly formed arguments.
-
That statement seems to be based exclusively on him being a union buster, despite the union busting happening 5 years after he left.
Reread my first post.
-
-
I don’t know, when?
Scroll up to the youtube video I linked.
-
You can hold a short position by repeatedly borrowing more stock – but you run the risk of running out of money completely, because short positions have (theoretically) infinite downside risk.
Financial risks can, by themselves, never be infinite. They are by nature quite finite. Also, risks are always alluding to a downside. Otherwise they’re called chances.
-
So he’s going to rehire the visa dependent labourers RG fired?
That’s neither a statement nor an argument, and is complete nonsense.
-
tl, dw. When did the discussion start?
-
Financial risks can, by themselves, never be infinite. They are by nature quite finite. Also, risks are always alluding to a downside. Otherwise they’re called chances.
Granted. “Arbitrarily large” would probably be a better phrasing: if I buy a stock for $100 and the value drops to $0, I’m out $100. Can’t lose more money than I put in. What I meant is that short positions, by their nature, don’t have this ceiling on the amount of money you lose.
