Und deshalb haben die Braunen nach dem Anschluss vom großdeutschen Reich gelabert.

Why aren’t they automatically looking for business links between Slovenian domain vendors and the First Family? Melania is Slovenian after all and it would be such a misstep if not even her extended family got to profit from this one.

I wouldn’t lay blame here mostly at Google’s feet. They AI-err on the side of caution. I don’t know if Google finds itself as defendants in a court room right now where the influence of an LLM lead to killing or suicide. This sort of caution is the result of various user psychoses that we have learned exist in the world. Teenagers or other easily susceptible folks thinking they are Jesus, talking to god or aliens, etc. I would go so far as to say well done in a better safe than sorry kind of way in this case.

What we learn here is that the model doing search and the algorithm operate seemingly independently. And that the so-called AI results aren’t great. Water is wet, more at eleven.

Google had good search results from the late 90s to about the early 2010s. Nothing else about that company was not weird at any time. With glassholes jumping out of airplanes or them buying up almost the entire online ad market and then abusing their market position. What they are doing with Android has me this close to switching to an iPhone. And YouTube comes with its own Pandora’s box of challenges. They famously edited the “don’t be evil” stuff out of their mission statement. There are bigger Google fish to fry than this “AI summary.”

You’re formulating arguments why I’m wrong. With the greatest of respect, that’s defeatism speaking. Difficult? Yes. Checkmate? No. It may take a crisis to get this going; the New Deal didn’t come from nowhere either.

You cannot fix all of these issues at once. You probably cannot fix a lot of these issues without first improving education levels within the population. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

Term limits for SC judges to some odd number of years for any new appointees is something both sides will be able to agree on. If nobody tries though, of course it won’t happen.

The US has been checkmated …

I’m going to take issue with this statement. Nobody has checkmated the US. If we have to stay in this metaphor, the US checkmated itself.

One of the biggest mistakes was to allot the same number of votes to Rhode Island as to California in the senate. A more proportionate voting system would do wonders for half the issues you listed. Appointing judges for life is another one. Financing election campaigns like that is also mad. Nobody forced Americans to do business like that.

This isn’t a game of chess where checkmate is irreversible. The sooner folks stop formulating arguments why I’m wrong or why these are insurmountable hurdles, the better for all of us.

While I do agree that with the cult clown car people in charge of the executive right now, there is an added difficulty to passing legislation. The Epstein Act part 1 has shown though there are ways. So regulation on so-called AI is still possible and not late like the article seems to suggest.

What’s the point of this article? To highlight that the sausage maker that is a parliamentary democracy is slow? Or to show how narrow majority margins cause long delays in passing legislation? I can’t imagine it’s only the lack of knowledge about so-called AI. I imagine many members don’t know that much about tax law, the intricacies of the military, or drugs in general. Yet we don’t question their qualifications when they pass legislation on those subjects. We elect people to these bodies not on the basis that they are experts at everything but for their ability to look into issues and form an opinion that hopefully most resembles ours. They cannot know everything, no matter how much they pretend. If that is the standard we hold them to, you’ll only get braggadocios assholes who will stand for elections.

When has a legislature ever been on top of the latest developments, especially in tech? It’s pretty much always reactive. The seatbelt and crumple zone came after the introduction of the automobile. OSHA didn’t predate the industrial revolution. Section 230 came after the WWW. Not by much in the grand scheme of things but still. We are what now? 4-5 years into this madness? It’s not unusual not to have great regulations set in stone.

Fools! That’s exactly what was missing from creating Skynet! The workers were replaced with slop bots, now management gets replaced by slop bots too! It’s slop bots all the way down! Run for the hills!

Eight minutes can seem very long though.

I think if I was caught like this, the last thing I’d want to do is talk to the media about it. Not even under a pseudonym. But this story is probably not here to make Google feel bad and return some of the money. This is a reminder for parents everywhere to review payment and parental settings on anything their kids use online. You can be smug enough to say my 8yo doesn’t stream on Twitch or whatever because why tf would you let them anyway. But you’re deleting the credit card off of Google Play because you forgot it was there because parenting makes you forgetful at times.

They are a bit vague on this but I suspect all of these attack vectors start with LEOs having physical access to the unlocked phone. They then set up a trusted desktop without the phone owners knowing.

Which is clever, to be fair. Whether or not that’s legal is already a court case. The law is so frightfully grey.

Which is it?

Seriously, I would stop doing that if I were you. Not for the esthetic or because there is inherently anything wrong with doing that. You’re going to become bycatch when people look to catch bots and sloppers in a wide net.

I would go for your favorite expletive. So when you see the mess he made and cuss he’ll come and look at you. Probably with disdain.

Any post formatted like that comes straight out of an LLM. No user, no matter how dedicated or how mad, would take the time to format headers and bullet points.

Reposting stuff from reddit and posting whatever the LLM spat out. As far as I’m concerned, you are a contributing factor to a stagnant user base here.

There are few feces filled salvoes flung at Melon Usk that I would object to. This is not one of them. The question I have though is this: do we need a new Twitter? It had its time in the sun but most people look back at it through rose tinted glasses. Before the takeover by the son of South African emerald mine owners, Twitter was in deep trouble. It had cultural relevance but was a financial flop. It benefited from being the first service of its kind with sufficient reach. I don’t think Twitter would have survived without the Nazi saluting shithead either. Its decline would have been more graceful by comparison. It would have done it without the bullshit tsunami emanating from the top, it wouldn’t have had the money to digitally undress people or other adventures in so-called AI, but I believe it would have faded anyway. People have split up from the one consensus platform to many different ones and making people switch is hard. So coming back now with a new Twitter is like announcing we will electrocute another Topsy next week. That turned heads more than a century ago but we have moved on.

I don’t like the direction Google is taking Android. I’m not in favor of this enforced developer registration.

“Seems to” is not the same as “did.” With a couple of LLMs and a bit of time others could’ve dropped these rave reviews as well. It isn’t far fetched that it is Google. But from a PR point of view they’d be stupid if it was them. They gain nothing but bad headlines from a stunt like that. So we probably need a bit more proof than some screenshots.

But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.

In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.

Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.

My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.

We also share half of our DNA with bananas. Therefore, we are also siblings of bananas.

There are laws and case law that make criticism of Israel harder than in other places. Post WW2 pro-Nazi and antisemetic speech was basically declared hate speech. Courts have taken a narrow view of what counts as antisemetic. There are in excess of six million reasons for that hard swing in the other direction.

So I would say the long version is this: you can criticize Israel but you need to pay close attention to how you say it. Criticizing the existence of the Jewish state is possible as well but you need to weigh your words even more carefully.

Moderators on an internet forum may take an even narrower approach to avoid any sort of legal trouble. And thus continues a chilling effect.

Freedom of speech is a tricky subject. Post WW2 the US had the influence to export their constitutional values, such as a first amendment, to Japan and West Germany. In both cases they punted. It’s not without some irony when I say opinions on how to establish freedom of speech in a democratic constitution vary.

If Lemmy is garbage, then why make a new account to whine about it on Lemmy?

You need to work on your anger management too. Your tone here has me thinking you were banned for a reason. Be respectful.