Oh, I’m aware of that. Just that courts will not rule against things that involve the use of AI in general. You cannot take the output directly from, but once a human gets involved they will allow it. There’s too many monied interests to allow the restrictions.
The question should be whether the final product is worth what was sacrificed to make it. That line is different for everyone, but it’s important to keep that in mind. Plenty of companies I boycott make acceptable products but are supporting a genocide.
I don’t think generative AI use is worth it however it’s employed and regardless of the quality of the final product. If enough people agree maybe they’ll stop using it.
This would never hold up in court, in part due to regulatory capture, but I think this is the only thing that would stop them.
This was only done because the editors pushed to minimize AI involvement. There’s a comment here already mentioning that: https://lemmy.world/comment/22826863
The images I am referring to are likely distinct from the ones in the title as they are from his iPhone and Google is who reported him. Regardless in the article it says the detective looked at one of the Google reported images. Whether they just referenced a known hash I don’t know for sure, but I think it’s pretty well known that FAANG scan basically all images for CSAM nowadays.
The detective alleges that that photograph and others she examined appeared to be stored in a folder on the iPhone titled “Girls I Drugged And Raped.”
What terrible friends this woman has. According to the article, none of them bothered to go and look with her or stay over there for a few nights? The article makes clear she was experiencing hallucinations, but still, I feel like a persistent thing as described warrants some kind of follow up, at least for peace of mind. Maybe help her set up a nanny cam at the very least. And then none of them even apologized?
I’m also surprised there were no charges brought against her neighbor for aiding, but I have no idea how that works in the uk.
Not sure how I didn’t hear of this already. Apparently it’s not necessarily a breathalyzer, but the proposals include a camera facing the driver to monitor them and passive monitoring of the air in the car.
I don’t drunk drive and barely even drink, but that’s horrifying. I can’t believe this went under the radar for me.
More garbage that is going to break and cost thousands of dollars to fix in addition to all the violations of privacy. Cars are already advertising to people. Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle? Why not invest in public transit? That’s a great way to decrease impaired drivers of all stripes as well as help people in general. All this does is funnel more money into auto makers. I am so upset that this is the first I’m hearing of it.
I absolutely can’t stand it, but realistically it’s often just the appearance of “lower taxes”. I know people who DONT PAY TAXES who want lower taxes. They are stupid and I want to scream. It doesn’t matter how many articles or studies or videos you show them, they just associate republicans with lower taxes and that’s what they want. They don’t particularly care about human rights, or outcomes for citizens, just the idea of lower taxes. Capitalism has made class solidarity so hard. These people have no idea who really has aligned interests and are in a constant bubble of misinformation that they refuse to do even the slightest thing to escape from. You can spoon feed them facts and they will spit them out. It’s like trying to feed a baby, but at least one day the baby may grow up and be able to feed itself. These people are incurious rubes who are ruining the world and are often not the ones suffering most from their decisions, though to be clear, they’re often not benefiting either. Also a bunch of Christian nationalists, and fascists, and run of the mill racist, sexist reactionaries.
Wow. What a terrible idea. There was a woman who was sent to jail in a different state for several months and lost her house, car, and dog because AI misidentified her and cops didn’t give a fuck. Cops should need a warrant for facial recognition at the very least, if it’s allowed at all. Can’t wait for “give me a smile” to be codified into law.
While I understand and appreciate the sentiment, I actually think it’s important for a variety of reasons, the main ones being:
Although I don’t care in the general sense, I do think it often decreases their ability to be good politicians.
If you sandbox anything it’ll be safer than otherwise. Not really sure what you’re suggesting. I would still want the code reviewed regardless of the safety measures in place.
I wrote a program that basically auto organizes my files for me. Even if an AI was sandboxed and only had access to the relevant files and had no delete privileges, I would still want the code reviewed. Otherwise it could move a file into a nonsensical location and I would have to go through all possible folders to find it. Someone would have to make the interfaces/gateways and also review the code. There’s no way to know how it’s working, so there’s no way to know IF it’s working, until the code is reviewed. Regardless of how detailed you prompt, AI will generate something that possibly (currently very likely) needs to be adjusted. I’m not going to take an AIs raw output and run it assuming the AI did it properly, regardless of the safety measures.
While I personally don’t like AI, I do think it is changing things. I don’t think it’s ever safe to run code without oversight from an actual programmer, but AI will likely affect the number of programmers being hired in a non negligible way.
That behaviour would probably have the opposite effect that the people who created this rule would want.
Why are you suggesting that? Ignoring capitalistic incentives, the rule is theoretically in place to increase safety. Your decision would have no impact on safety so I’m not sure why you think it would have the opposite effect.
Uber is not society. It is making a decision it thinks will increase its revenue. It is indeed a sign of a lack of progress, but the people responsible for the progress you want are us. I’m not chiming in on the policy itself, but your comment makes it feel like you are not as committed to the progress you want made. There are men in this thread saying that they hate what women have to put up with, but understand it and want them to feel safe. That’s not what I’m getting from your comment. If I had to choose between being in a forest with you vs them I’d choose them because it seems like you’re more concerned with how you’re perceived than how other people are actually affected. I can imagine that being viewed as a predator must be uncomfortable, but women are often viewed as prey and that’s not great either. I don’t want to start playing at oppression olympics, but the fact that a post about a move to theoretically increase women’s safety has you responding about your feelings as a perceived predator makes it seem like you don’t think we as a society should do things that make women feel safer because it makes you feel like you’re being viewed as a predator.
I for the most part don’t mind being around male strangers, but the ones that give me extra room on a sidewalk or in a bar are undoubtedly the ones I’m most comfortable around and ones I’d be most likely to engage with. Not because the others make me feel unsafe but because they make me feel safe. It’s like if you invite someone into your house you can offer them food or a drink to help them feel comfortable or you can just not. You’re not necessarily a bad person for not offering something, just potentially perceived as less inviting. Society is still seen and felt as the dominion of men for a lot of people, so when men go out of their way to make space for us, it signals that they are friendly and welcoming and want us to feel safe. I think if you want to work on that divide, the best thing to do is make the women you’re around feel safe. It’s unfortunate, but it’s up to us to destigmatize our own identities. I just don’t think your comment does that.
Per RAINN, 57% of perpetrators are white. I’ll charitably imagine you’re attempting to point out perceived hypocrisy in gender vs race selection, but you’re perpetuating racist and xenophobic stereotypes. White men commit rape at more than twice the rate of black men, and naturally born citizens commit crimes at rates higher than both documented and undocumented immigrants.
If you want to make the case that it’s a discriminatory policy, you’re welcome to do so, but tying it to false perceptions of race is probably not the best move. It’s coming off as reactionary at best.
It’s Florida, so it feels like the point is moot, but in case it’s not exceedingly obvious, do not vote for this guy or the one running for senate.
I’ve not seen people Lemmy advocate for any of these kinds of bills and have seen several posts against this kind of thing. Judging by the upvotes, this seems to be generally supported. Can you provide some examples of what you’re referring to?
Thank you for this comment. I have backups I tested on implementation and rummaged through two years ago after a weird corruption issue, but not once since. I still get alerts about them, so I just assume they’re fine, but first thing Monday I’m gonna test them. I feel stupid for not having implemented regular checks already, but will do so now.
Guy work in IT and spent 100k to pay devs to make an app so people can talk to his tuned ChatGPT? I hope anyone who has hired him checks his work. That does not bode well for his work product.
Another case from the article:
What’s weird to me is they now recognize AI will lie to you but somehow think they can prompt it not to? Your rules can be “overwritten” because they do not exist to ChatGPT. It does not know what words mean.