A lot of city dwellers then were doing manual labor (factory lines, construction), but I’m really not sure about the office workers from them. It’s a good question!
Hm, this was mostly anecdotal from speaking to German friends (including people in Munich!), so I guess I was speaking too generally. Certainly more people drink bottled water in Germany at restaurants compared to many other countries, but I see that I was overstating the case for at home.
Per Jeffrey L. Singman, Daily Life in Medieval Europe, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999, P. 54 - 55 (and text copied from https://stores.renstore.com/food-and-drink/dietary-requirements-of-a-medieval-peasant), “A prosperous English peasant in the 14th century would probably consume 2 - 3 pounds of [rye, oats, or barley] bread, 8 ounces of meat or fish or other protein and 2 - 3 pints of ale per day”, which works out to about 3500 to 5000 calories per day.
That same page lists various farm chores as burning 1500-7500 calories over an 8 hour period, so assuming some mix of those plus the normal base calorie burning easily adds up to over 3500 calories.
This blog post (https://www.worldturndupsidedown.com/2011/08/how-many-calories-did-they-eat-in-day.html?m=1) looked at a shopping list from the 1860s and found that men ate about 3500 calories per day while women ate about 2500 calories per day. I’m not sure what audience this was aimed at (farmers? factory workers?) but clearly it’s more than 2400 calories per day.
This post (https://oureverydaylife.com/321257-the-peasant-diet.html) cites “research published at Eastern Kentucky University” to say that “an average medieval person burned between 4,000 and 5,000 calories per day … A typical diet for peasants delivered between 3,500 and 4,500 calories, about or just under the need.”
If you’d like I can do more academic research, but these independent sources all roughly corroborate each other so I’m personally satisfied.
One note is that the food eaten historically was much less appealing to eat. I don’t think they were eating 3 pounds of bread because they really liked oat bread, but rather that they needed it to survive doing hard manual labor for 8 hours a day.
Farm laborers historically ate a lot of calories just to be able to get through their days. Their calories weren’t very appetizing, but they had to eat a lot because they burned a lot.
In German, the tap water is known to be very hard, so essentially no one drinks tap water. Instead, it's common to drink alcoholic beverages (brewed, so they don't have the same mineral level) or bottled mineral water. The mineral water does contain some lithium (and some mineral waters contain very high levels), but most bottled water in Germany does not have very high levels of lithium. In this study, the "medium" sample was 171 µg/L while the "high lithium" sample was 1724 µg/L. So people who generally drink the high lithium bottled water would be at the lower end of SMTM's guesses, and everyone else would be safely outside of it.
Unfortunately, that question was set up poorly so that it is impossible to guess lower than a median of $5010. Of course, that's because the actual price of ETH was around $4800 back in November 2021, so the predictors are basically saying that it won't recover to that price by the end of 2022.
I'm not super familiar, but I just read the one page summary of the report. One of the supposed catalysts for $150k was EIP1559, which went into effect last August and didn't seem to affect the price. The other catalyst was supposed to be PoS coming shortly after, which has been continually delayed (though probably coming soon) and will have had a much longer gap after EIP1559. ETH HODLing seems to not be significant as expected, so that's another driver that has failed. The narrative also isn't there, and the recent crypto crashes are working against it. The spike to $150k seems to be impossible since the different drivers didn't line up.
Moreover, I suspect that SquishChaos' prediction for ETH now would be at least somewhere in the middle of the price at the time of the report (~$2000) and $30k, so perhaps $15k? Instead ETH peaked under $5k in November and is back down to $1k, so I would say that the report seems pretty much falsified. That doesn't mean it won't hit prices that high, but I certainly would not expect them any time this year, or even in the next few years.
I suspect most people that would say that they wouldn't kill Grandma would also say the same about a situation where they can kill someone else's grandma to give the money to their own family. Actually, in the hypothetical, you're not one of Grandma's heirs, so I interpreted it as if you're some random person who happens to be around Grandma, not one of her actual grandchildren.
So really, I think that it is either something like "the moral weight of the person next to me versus distant strangers" or "choosing to kill someone is fundamentally different than choosing to save someone's life and you can't add them up".
California introduced the CCPA following the GDPR, which covers a lot of the same regulations although generally less strict.
It seems to me that the only thing that seems possible is to treat it like a human that took inspiration from many sources. In the vast majority of cases, the sources of the artwork are not obvious to any viewer (and the algorithm cannot tell you one). Moreover, any given created piece is really the combination of the millions of pieces of the art that the AI has seen, just like how a human takes inspiration from all of the pieces that it has seen. So it seems most similar to the human category, not the simple manipulations (because it isn’t a simple manipulation of any given image or set of images).
I believe that you can get the AI to output an image that is similar to an existing one, but a human being can also create artwork that is similar to existing art. Ultimately, I think the only solution to rights protection must be handling it at that same individual level.
Another element that needs to be considered is that AI generated art will likely be entirely anonymous before long. Right now, anyone can go to http://notarealhuman.com/ and share the generated face to Reddit. Once that’s freely available with DALL-E 2 level art and better (and I don’t think that’s avoidable at this point), I don’t think any social norms can hinder it.
The other option to social norms is to outlaw it. I don’t think that a limited regulation would be possible, so the only possibility would be a complete ban. However, I don’t think all the relevant governments will have the willpower to do that. Even if the USA bans creating image generation AIs like this (and they’d need to do so in the next year or two to stop it from already being widely spread), people in China and Russia will surely develop them within a decade.
Determining that the provenance of an artwork is a human rather than an AI seems impossible. Even if we added tracing to all digital art tools, it would still be possible to create an image with an AI, print and scan it, and then claim that you made it yourself. In some cases, you actually could trace the AI-generated art, which still involves some effort but not nearly as much.