It’s not about the AI. It’s about the idea that this author might have been hired with the intention that he do exactly what he did as a way for the people in charge to vet the true feelings/misgivings that the people in the room might have about their brand and their use of AI.
I don’t think the OC meant to defend or even insult AI.
So. The company could have just turned over the proof to the police and let them prosecute him for CP/CSAM. Instead they decided to do this? Why? I doubt he’s got money they can take. It’s certainly not to protect the “good name”. This seems like they just want to be seen doing something and they picked the worst thing to be seen doing.
“He used our LLM for CSAM!”
“Why does your LLM generate CSAM?”
Settlement so they don’t have to reveal anything in 3. 2. 1.
You never get the smell of burning flesh out of your nose.
I believe they can sue though. Might depend on the law there but I was literally just watching a video of a lawyer going over what to do if your property is seized and or used in violation of your right to enjoy your property and there’s an avenue for land owners to sue.
They’re already trying to track everything I do. Why would I help them?
This is the thing. I’m not against using tech to decide if someone is too drunk to drive. But I am against overreliance on tech to infringe the rights of others and possibly put them in danger in order to protect the public. Especially when it comes from people who don’t know how the tech works and have never used it.
If you can’t think critically about how the tech works and what the pros/cons of the tech are, then you don’t necessarily deserve to be able to make decisions like this for the masses.
You don’t have to drink to have used one. I don’t drink. I have had to use one. This comment reads like “fuck any service worker who might have to drive your car.” Fuck mechanics. Fuck tow truck drivers. Fuck EMS.
Fuck people who have health problems and can’t actually use their lung capacity to blow into the breathalyzer to release the interlock. They’ll never have an emergency and maybe have to drive anywhere.
That’s why it’s a dumb take. This isn’t about drunk driving deaths. Your “assume guilt and fuck everyone else who’s not guilty but will be put in danger over it” take is exactly what I said it was.
Have you ever had to use one? I’ve had to do it (lot attendant) and not only is it unsanitary if someone else has to drive your car, but it’s fucking hard to get the breathalyzer to actually work properly to allow you to start the car and it will go off again while you’re driving requiring you to actually breath into it again. It’s not a passive thing, you have to have the lung capacity to do it. It can be set off by false positives too. This is the dumbest take.
If (and that if is doing so much heavy lifting) they actually were probing their own AI this way, your point might be valid. But doing it secretly while still saying that AI is safe to use (like so many AI companies have done) is disingenuous.
What the article says is that Meta was directing contractors to do this to their competitors AI.
AI copied everyone else’s work and now it wants to cry about copying. Sucks to suck.
There is more than one benefit to ending physical media.
If you thought it was just about the resale market I have some public landmarks for sale.
Who pays the fine when your kid gets a ticket on a leaners permit?
Do you see where I’m going with this. Either the government is going to actually put the wok in to enforce a common sense law the easiest way they can, or they’re going to do what they’ve been doing and get the results they’ve been getting while using it for their ulterior motive which is to surveil the general population.
Let’s try again. Let’s say your kid gets ahold of spray paint and vandalizes some property. Many kids and parents have been held accountable in that situation and the risk isn’t really the point, it’s just moving goal posts.
The point is that as a parent you are responsible for the safety and well being of your child. Which proves you can be held accountable.
If your child gets hold of a weapon and hurts themselves or someone else then you are liable. I don’t really see how this is much different but I’m all ears.
And yes, I am a parent who’s kid doesn’t have social media. And yes, I am aware that we need to be educating parents on how to use parental controls and enforcing their use (on platform side as well as in the home).
Which doesn’t necessarily translate into them believing or supporting age verification and privacy violation to do it.
It’s funny because originally I didn’t understand how it was different and when it was explained to me in a factual way I did understand and changed my view and people really don’t like that.
Humans offloading the decisions to a bot that’s trained on bad decisions?
Is the hilarious thing to follow suit and announce the end of them offering physical disks?
I have a question about the whole port thing. Apparently (according to another case where a guy wiped his phone), international airports count as a port of entry where the authorities can search your phone without a warrant. But at the same time, shouldn’t that only count in the event that you’re using it as a port of exit or entry into the country? You mean to tell me I can take a flight to NY from Missouri and have my phone subjected to a search just because JFK is an international airport?
Can I drive by a border crossing and be subject to search?
According to the information found at this link the answer is yes.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/rules-car-searches-different-search-near-us-border.html
So if I happen to live without a 100 mile radius of a border crossing I’m screwed? It seems like this decision further exacerbates an injustice inherent in the how much power ICE has, and it’s bullshit. You should need probable cause to search someone.