FriendOfDeSoto

I mean, logically, it would make sense to push VPNs into illegality or create a lot of gray area there if you're also planning to introduce the Aussie social media ban. Logically. I personally think both are no good.

I've read some headlines about illegal streaming being targeted and shut down in Europe. If there was lobby money invested, I suspect it is the likes of sports rights holders who would like you to pay them extortionate amounts of money and not sail the high seas for the price of a VPN.

Modstå, kære dansker.

If omnipotent deity of your choice forbid this ever lands at the ECJ I'm not sure they will side with the privacy/freedom of speech side of the argument.

Is every scenario with so-called AI in it caused by humans? Sure. That's not really my point though. It was humans who caused the dumb situation around private gun ownership that then eventually caused school shootings to be a thing schools need to prepare for. I would tolerate the use of so-called AI here under these dumb circumstances and moreover would tolerate a false positive like this. I feel similarly positive about the use of models in medicine - if and when it helps. Or as a tool for people with disabilities. Et cetera.

Normally we lambast here very dumb applications of so-called AI. The ones that get lawyers in trouble, the ones that get forced into areas where it's unnecessary, the ones that boil away drinking water senselessly, or that ask children for nudes, or - sadly - the ones that drive teenagers to suicide. We lambast all the peddlers of so-called AI with their dumb predictions about how their faulty products will revolutionize everything. That's the spirit of "Fuck AI." My point was this story is less in keeping with the spirit of "Fuck AI." So-called AI might actually help to make a bad situation not get worse.

"Would-be assassin shot in the head turns out be 8th grader holding clarinet"

Is this really a case of fuck AI? To anybody outside the US this paragraph reads like fucking satire. From within, where kids learn how to crouch under desks, hide behind bullet proof whiteboards or something, and lock down better than the CIA this doesn't really move the needle, does it? The trauma is already there with all the drills and is eternal, as is the 2nd amendment. And this is one area where you would prefer a false positive over a false negative. So for me this isn't so much fuck AI as fuck every lawmaker of the US since the civil war.

Oh boy, it will be doubly difficult now to tell insane policy apart from the hallucinations.

I think this is exactly two people's fault. The "writer" and the last human in the newsroom because everybody else has been let go ages ago.

You want the current laws applied. I say the current laws are not good enough to get anybody convicted, no matter how rich they are. And since I'd much prefer to live in a world where I'm wrong, let's stop arguing.

Americans, as a general population, don't give a shit about Myanmar, may not know it even exists.

I would say that's irrelevant for the crimes committed. And not just Americans would struggle to find Myanmar on a map. Or really care what's going on there unless it's rooting out phishing farms using abducted foreigners.

I commend your view on the matter, that when it comes to their children they will do something. That may turn out to be true. However, that's not going to be enough to get anyone at meta convicted under the current laws. They are running under a cover of diffuse authority and supervision internally and section 230 externally. Abhorent drug pusher comments are not admissions of guilt. They have good lawyers. We need new laws, more regulation, and fines that make Wall Street worried.

If these things were clean cut, they would have been dragged to court already many times over. For messing with teenage girls for a laugh 10 years ago. For tacitly approving genocide in Myanmar. For cheating on their video views during the highly successful pivot to video. A good lawyer will get them out of this one too with but a slap on the wrist. They exist in a gray zone where they can fuck up as much as they want to without having to fear great consequences. Vote for politicians who want to regulate these companies more.

So what they're saying is that when you train a model on material biased against minority groups it will turn out to be biased against these minority groups? Truly shocking, totally unexpected, and really no one could have foreseen this. Because bias in so-called AI was really just discovered this morning! JFC.

I don't think this is right-wing specific. You could probably draw similar conclusions coming from an Islamist angle. And this so-called AI is going to be next "frontier" is not all that clear to me yet. It's a nebulous threat at this stage that starts with a lot of "imagine if" arguments. We don't know yet. It's worth paying attention. But we don't know if HitLLMer chatbots are going to cause more damage than the concentration camp simulation games that preceded them.

There is a good 15% of people who are drank the koolaid right-wing believers. I don't think that number has changed much in the last century. The number that changes is how many of the less extreme or undecided people in the middle they can convince they're right.

The internet is only as regulated as the least regulating country on this planet. So all it takes is a tiny island nation or a principality left over in time to break the chain. It's also conceivable (imagine if!) that a fine, upstanding citizen like Elon Musk uses the change he found in his couch cushions to circumvent any regulatory efforts anywhere to distribute otherwise regulated content via his private satellite network. The answer cannot be "let's limit speech more." The answer must be "fight back with truth and facts." If asshole ideologists use all the digital tools available to spread their bullshit, we need to fund initiatives that counter that speech with the same tools.

I say we stop listening to the opinion of people who are heavily invested in this industry for future prognoses.