rockskon

How you want governments to work and how they actually work are different things.

How you want public perception to work and how it actually works are different things.

I've never seen Wikipedia accepted as a source. Mostly I've seen the shift to recommending people look at Wikipedia's citations as sources.

It really doesn't make sense for businessowners to see themselves as independent from the society they operate in.

Especially in Google's case where they've invested so much into remaking how society works worldwide. To expect people to simply accept anything and everything Google wants to do just because they're a private business regardless of how many billions of people their actions affect?

Lunacy.

Even then, -ai doesn't always follow directions.

Google has a severe problem with consent.

Google wasn't exactly losing money with search results before.

If anything they're losing far more money with AI.

> It's not a goalpost move though, as there was never a guarantee to remain on well water.

That sounds like an argument to never depend on Google for anything ever again under any circumstance short of severe punitive legislative action.

How the sausage is made is irrelevant when the goal is to get students to research primary sources of which Google AI summaries cannot be.

*dependant on the Gemini ecosystem.

When dealing with an industry and company that historically has trafficked heavily in deception and legal sleight-of-hand, this is not something that can simply be assumed.

Do they have contracts in place with every single entity they provide your personal data to, regardless of context, that they are not allowed to sell/exchange/give away said personal data to data brokers or insurance companies and that such an agreement must be made with any and every company that, in turn, acquires this data?

Oh! And lets not forget the ever-important derivative information.

Information derived from your personal information that Ford or any other car manufacturer collects that can still identify you should also be off the table for ever getting in the hands of data brokers or insurance companies under any context.

Do they sell the information to another entity that, in turn, will sell it to insurance companies or data brokers?

Features such as....?

They keep telling the public that. Their assertions do not have value without trustworthy data to back them up.

After their effort to take credit for the research of others last time, it's within OpenAI's best interests to go the extra mile to convince skeptics to not dismiss new research findings.

"In this video I'm going to..."

"Let me tell you why!"

"Is not X, it's Y!"

and so on. It's so tiresome. I can't stand AI scripts. It makes the entire video feel like a waste of my time.

That is empirically false as evidenced by the voluntary download rate of Facebook's permission updates on the App and Play Stores.

If people didn't care then why do so many companies have to coerce/deceive users into using their product?

Convenience my ass - the alternative to "convenience" is not participating in modern society, which isn't a decision at all.

We're in an uneasy truce with regards to mandatory backdoors.

They're not demanded because targets are just so easy to pop.

If we did secure software across the board with AI, there'd likely be a resurgence of calls for mandatory backdoors.

I'd argue the overwhelming majority of consumer-facing AI products aren't serious products to consumers.

I'm mostly referring to needless AI chatbots shoehorned into various places.

The military could just use different AI models for the purposes Anthropic does not want its models used for.

Purposes Anthropic already spelled out in contract form.

And now we have junior programmers that don't understand the code being generated and submit pull requests with garbage code.

Countries trying to impose their laws on other countries that affect residents of other countries seem like they're raising a question of territoriality.

Seems like that's a more appropriate venue for international discussions between governments to figure this out rather than a situation where each country is trying to pass laws that affect much of the rest of the world.

So why not apply the age verification check to known VPN services and leave residential IPs alone? Laws from one country can only apply to another country to only so much of a degree.

I did not limit my statement to "people providing their government ID are at risk" or some equivalent for a reason. Bootstrapping the service for accounts it flags as adult now completely leaves all future services who have no pre-existing userbase to behaviorally profile - facilitating an industry norm that age/ID verification should be expected going forward is, and I repeat, a risk to the safety and privacy of all users.

Don't strawman an argument next time as "uninformed" lest you reveal just how many false assumptions you were making in arriving at that conclusion.

This is the type of issue I was referring to, yes.

It will be trivial for pedophiles to figure out which accounts aren't tagged as verified adults.

And knowing how these sorts of dynamics work - it'll largely be children in third world countries that will be the primary victims of pedophiles in this manner.

Unacceptable.

There is no legitimate reason to impose age verification on users in jurisdictions that do not legally mandate it.

It is a risk to the privacy and safety of all users on the platform - it provides an easier way for pedophiles to identify underage users and provides more doxable information.

Discord has no business making this decision on behalf of jurisdictions that do not legally mandate it.

Are any of those people not investors?

Sometimes there's a fuse you can pull to disable the telematics (or whatever the heck a given car company calls it).

They were just bringing levity to an otherwise depressing topic.

What a fascinating video. What a treat to hear him talk.

Much of my excitement has been dying off due to the commercialization of the hacker community, the culture war, and the constant legislative losses for privacy and effective ownership of goods you purchase because they've code in them you often cannot legally circumvent the "digital lock" on.

I'm curious what can be done to get it back. It seems the more I care, the more I get jaded due to the constant loss of freedom with tech.

Do you have a specific example on the wiki you can cite for your grievance?

So long as it wasn't something that changed due to a firmware update after purchase, sure.

One of the most common grievances on ConsumerRightsWiki is when the terms of the sale seem to change after you've already purchased the product.

Because if you want to convince someone away from believing it's an addiction so severe it needs an act of government to address, presenting an argument that all-but-panders to their "people spend so much time on it that it must be an addiction!" priors is counter productive.