That is definitely a major factor, it’s just not the only one. People seem to believe the world operates like a comic book with designated villains do all the bad things and everybody else is just a victim. Individual behavior is also a factor. I mean what’s the dominant gospel on Boomers - that they irresponsibly polluted the Earth and wasted all the resources, or that they were innocent victims of a few evil billionaires?

I agree the result is fair game, but “They weren’t kicked out by mistake” is theorizing about backstage shenanigans in an organization that until now hasn’t exactly been known for evil. I mean it’s not politicians it’s scientists trying to cure diabetes.

Actors onscreen usually don’t really eat the food. It’s usually fake food that’s been created to look perfect, because real food doesn’t do well under camera lighting. Fake food can look fresh all day. And if they bit into a sandwich they’d need a new sandwich for each retake. The actors would also gradually get full, and spills would cause costume and set problems. Some directors do real food but generally it’s just asking for trouble. And actors certainly don’t do real laundry or other domestic things on camera lol. Sppliances usually aren’t even plugged in. It’s all phony.

There was one famous heartwarming Coke commercial where a kid gives his Coke to a tired football player, who downs it and then tosses the awestruck kid his jersey. I remember the player saying they did 15 or 16 takes and he drank the whole Coke each time.

Whether 91% accuracy is acceptable depends on how unacceptable the 9% inaccuracy is. If 91% of the information in your term paper is correct you’ll probably get a decent grade, but if you only kill 91% of cancer cells the surviving 9% will grow a treatment-resistant tumor and you’ll probably die. This makes percentages essentially useless - more important is how badly wrong the worst wrong result is.

OTOH assumptions are cheap too, and I would venture to guess nobody in this thread knows anything about the hierarchy of the ADA, its most influencial insiders or their motives. We tend to shape those things according to the picture that satisfies us the most, and usually make it the simplest picture that invites the most hate. And saying this isn’t an excuse or apologism, it’s just staying open to improvement.

edit: And yeah, based on the douchevotes people seem to be taking my comment as support for the ADA, which it is not - they were definitely wrong to kick those guys out. Just saying all we know is what’s in the article, and people who do the wrong thing can still eventually do the right thing if they’re motivated.

The apology is a start. Followthrough is expected.

All those dog open-carry advocates got some splainin’ to do now.

This is fantastic if it means companies can switch to inexpensive ads that can be cobbled together by somebody’s kids, and ditch their multi-million dollar ad budgets that just make everything cost more.

Your Honor, I object on the grounds that contact with Talos IV is forbidden!

I know. I just think it’s disingenuous to disapprove of fakery using AI but approve of fakery people do on their own. To me it’s like saying you’re evil if you use a ladder instead of asking a tall person to reach things for you.

I agree - ads that depict dentists, firefighters, etc to sell things should use real dentists, firefighters, etc. not actors pretending.

Actually seems ironic since they’ve never had to label actors as synthetic housewives, synthetic grocery clerks, synthetic friends, or anything else. Why has it always been acceptable to present unreal scenarios to convince people to buy stuff?

Yeah it’s not a landmark ruling by any means, it conforms to precedents and follows common sense. Content creators are responsible for what they create.

The clickbait headline tying the author’s quote to the ruling was journalistically unprofessional - but headlines are usually written by editors not writers.

Minor clarification - the article writer (not the ruling) said: “In other words, nobody needs AI to search the Internet.”

The actual ruling was that a search provider is responsible if they inaccurately summarize results. When search results are just links to content related to a topic, the provider isn’t responsible for the accuracy of the content, which is created by others. But they are responsible for their own summaries and other provider-created content.

A question about banning tech that invades privacy is irrelevant in a thread about banning tech that invades privacy? Okay, fair enough - I’ll move it to Ask Lemmy, where it might not hit at many hot buttons.

There’s more than one problem. Even if politicians weren’t bribey and Citizens United didn’t give corps a license to bribe them, we would still have pollution and other problems because individuals choose convenience over doing the right thing - which is “the” problem I meant.

I got pulled over on suspicion of bank robbery once, because I was driving away from an area where a guy had robbed a Washington Mutual a few minutes earlier. He fit my description and was wearing a gray hoodie like me, driving an old yellow Toyota pickup like me. The cops even showed me the bank surveillance photo, which was taken from over his shoulder and didn’t capture his face. He had the same shape head and was even bald on top like me. I mean, I would have arrested myself lol. What convinced them was that our glasses frames were a little different. Plus I didn’t have any loot.

I’ll wait for somebody who understands what “hypothetical” means. Sorry to take your time.

I’m talking about detecting dishonest intent, not fact checking.

Hypothetical question: if I invented glasses that told me when people were lying, would they be accepted or would there be an angry uprising to ban them?

edit: reminder - clicking an arrow is not an answer, it means you don’t have one.

edit: why the douchevotes and silence on this? The only responder just deflected the question. It seems to me that taking lying out of human interaction would be a plus. Isn’t the idea at least interesting?