I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Join a lobby. Start a lobby. It’s not just tech Bros that can do this. Anyone can and should lobby for what they want. The difference between you and a tech bro millionaire is that they are organized.
“Designed to prevent bypassing age checks by people who don’t understand the technology they are trying to regulate” more at 11.
Legislators should be required to understand technology or consult experts in the field before they enact legislation. This is a waste of tax payer dollars and I’m not even sure it’s enforceable.
If my tax dollars are paying for it then I deserve to see it. This is public. I don’t have a choice but to be surveilled so they shouldn’t have a choice but to make it public.
There is a distinct possibility that when people like the guy you were talking to “retire” or get forced out, these corps will hire you (a person without the degree but with the passion to do the job). In pretty much all cases you should assume that they will be taking advantage of you in any way they can, including by looking to use your much cheaper labor to fill the holes the other guy left when they retired.
They will pay you a fraction of what they paid him regardless of your skill. They will avoid any and all training so they don’t have to increase your pay. They will try to force you to use AI rather than building skills you will need to progress in a career like this. And when you give pushback they will force you out either by outright firing you or by making things so miserable you abandon your job. They will continue to do this to anyone they can get on the hook. Probably even after the bubble pops (using local models instead). They don’t want knowlegable humans because those people can ask for what they want and will advocate for it. Those people know what they are worth. They want patsies.
They don’t think. They know. They have carefully weighed the likeliness of repercussions vs to the profit to be made from doing it anyway. They have also weighed how likely it is they will face legal action and what the legal action will cost them. They have also also stacked the deck against the common user and any legislators that might want to hold them accountable through lobbying and other forms of coercion or bribery.
This is a well calculated “risk” vs reward for them.
You want some fuk? Give us you biometric data!
Why? Seriously. What for? What was the point of replying to my original comment? Are you trying to start a fight?
Do you not like facts? Is it just that you felt like what I said was misleading?
What is your deal?
Because it seems to me like you’re just being antagonizing for no reason.
My comment wasn’t intended to be a defense of American food. It wasn’t suppose to come across as if the food doesn’t have any flaws or dangers. But you sure took it like I said something crazy.
You aren’t even comparing our rice and the levels of heavy metals found to other countries to see where we land.
Or explaining the difference between brown rice levels of heavy metals vs white rice levels (brown rice having more heavy metals by a large margin).
Instead you’re just out here spreading FUD for reasons so you can dunk on the US.
This does not negate our food ranking for safety when compared to the rest of the world no matter how much you might like it to be otherwise.
Think about what I said vs what you think I said before you decide to reply to me.
https://www.glaubfm.com/index.php/blog/us-ranks-3rd-global-food-security-index
Sigh. We’re gonna go from third in the world in food safety to like 80th. Speed run.
Given what I assume is a typo, I don’t know which way to take what you wrote. On the one hand, I agree they grifted the grifted. On the other hand, they could potentially be considered gifted. Gifted enough to understand that using AI this way could allow them to grift people probe prone to being grifted. Of course. If I take it that way I have to assume the second “gifted” is meant in a derogatory way to call them dumb.
I thought about this way too much.
Hopefully companies relying on other companies like crowdstrike.
What are we paying for if not to have things work and have backups? I have so many questions about the companies you give your money to and what you think you’re getting in return?
Like. I feel like there’s a lot of jobs where email could fail/crash and work could still be done. The whole company shouldn’t just shut down because the AI is down. It shouldn’t shut down because email is down. That’s not just poor planning it’s really poor business practice.
What did they do before the AI? Why (when considering how temperamental LLMs can be) would anyone trust it to such an extent that you’re dead in the water if it fails?
In the military we have a maintenance tracking system. It’s electronic. We literally bdo drills for if it goes down and we have to resort to paper backups. And there are paper backups.
Without a computer I could still manage an entire flight line worth of planes, and everything they need. Maintenance, fueling, sorties, etc. What you’re telling me is that this company and lots of companies do not have a contingency for if there is a system failure or other outage.
That seems acceptable? Why? Short of a power outage (and probably not even then unless we can’t Jerryrig a lighting solution) we can do all the jobs required with hand tools. It’s crazy to think that people don’t think this should be a thing.
Certainly a possibility. Lots of people really dislike Gizmodo as a news outlet for past controversy.
I don’t think them saying this has much to do with liking Altman. Rather, I think they are raging at Gizmodo (because well, Gizmodo) and also at the headline of an article they didn’t read.
Win a car that may be will be spying on you (don’t worry, no one will ever win the million dollars).
You should probably look up the arrest records of civil rights activists and give a good hard think about whether or not you’re willing to be the problem in order to enact a solution because we will not prevail on this in the long run without taking some blows.
This countries government has already proven time and again that they will literally kill people who have done nothing wrong in order to get what they want.
People really do believe that they can fight fascism by just avoiding anything that might get them in trouble.
So I’m going to point out that people have already been harassed, arrested, injured, and killed by law enforcement for protesting in other ways too in this country and historically that has also happened.
A demonstration of why a law being enacted (that uses freely /publicly available information) should not be considered a form of harassment.
Further, if it is then it can be argued in a court of law that if it counts as harassment then the law shouldn’t enable it to be more effective which is the point.
Calling, emailing, and writing to elected officials isn’t harassment, and explaining the very real dangers of the lack of privacy laws and the results of the lack also isn’t by itself harassment. But if you will avoid a protest because you feel there may be reprisals against you for it then you’re very unlikely to be protesting in the first place. They have already won in this scenario.
I don’t think you understand what I’m suggesting.
Sending someone a “This is publically available information readily available on the internet that can and will be abused by people once this bill goes through in conjunction with the type of data that will be leaked from said data collection for ID efforts and it’s already dangerous now” isn’t the same as sending federal judges anonymous pizza. One is a well understood threat, the other is a demonstration from a constituent reaching out to an elected official.
I’m not saying anonymously threaten them.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2044718576485953536/vid/avc1/996x2160/hyLmEHaGr6DltAA6.mp4
Apparently it’s already exposing sensitive user data and can be bypassed.
Only business that would require an ID/Age Verification check, but yeah. Except they don’t want to hold actual websites liable. They want to hold ISP’s liable.
There’s literally no way to know if the people using the VPN’s are located in Utah. So this law would be unenforceable against actual websites.
It might possibly be enforceable against ISP’s but the problem is, once you fire up a VPN your ISP can only see your entry point and maybe that there is a volume of traffic going to and from your device. They can’t see what websites you visit (provided your VPN is properly configured).
I also don’t understand how this bill could effectively lay any blame against the websites for knowing you use a VPN because they also can’t see any of that information. They know that you visited and from a specific IP “located” in “place” and they can either assume that the use of a VPN means you’re in Utah (very unlikely), or they can assume you’re not (more likely given the population that lives outside Utah).