Comment Re:I smell a contradiction (Score 1) 21
Or more like "cloud infrastructure running within physical and legal jurisdiction of the EU is running locally to the EU" if you prefer
Or more like "cloud infrastructure running within physical and legal jurisdiction of the EU is running locally to the EU" if you prefer
"The only way to ensure sovereignty and control is with software running locally with NO cloud dependency."
They're not talking about personal sovereignty. Cloud infrastructure an organization owns is "running locally" to that organization.
Makes sense. The same standards apply to humans. If we were to tweet something completely made up, there is a chance of legal troubles. So should be the same for AI
Have you ever tweeted something completely made up? What happened? Or, if you haven't done it, what do you think would happen? Suppose, for example, that you tweeted out a claim that "Coca-Cola contains extract of ground-up baby brains". What do you think the legal consequences of that (horrendous!) claim would be?
There is an important legal distinction that this court chose to ignore, which is that you're only liable for incorrect information if it's reasonable to expect that people would believe that you are providing correct information. If you, bubblyceiling, tweet false information, you will not, in fact, be held liable for it, because courts would rightly reject the claim that readers had a reason to believe they should trust you.
Obviously, Google's statements are held to a higher standard that bubblyceiling's. But everyone understood that web search results weren't Google's statements. The question at hand then is whether people believe that Google's LLM's statements are, in fact, statements made by Google, the corporation.
No one could seriously believe that. This court was dead wrong.
And while I am still working on OpenWater and Alignable, the only thing I've gotten from LinkedIn in the past year is rewrite-your-resume scams
Headline is that Solar produced more power in May than Coal in the U.S. Yet most of the comments here are about how evil Trump is and how he's destroying the environment or what not. Which is it? Is Solar increasing electrical production share under this administration, or not? Conflating whether or not people's political preferences align has nothing to do with the other.
I think you missed that most of those comments about Trump are gloating that he is demonstrably failing in his effort to destroy renewable power generation and favor fossil fuels -- and especially Beautiful Clean Coal (just like he's failing at approximately everything else, except this failure is good). Once you have that context, it makes a lot more sense.
The US could turn off all electricity and cars and use zero energy and Indonesia, India, and China would solely continue to destroy the environment at just about the same rate. Just to put things in perspective.
Well, China, for one, is building renewable energy generation far faster than we are. They're also building a lot of coal plants so it's going to take them some effort to push their emissions down to the global average per capita. However, note that we're far, far above the global average, and also well above China.
As for India and Indonesia, their emissions are already well below the global average, so they're not really the problem. Once we and China get down to their level, then we can all start pushing the average (and therefore total) down further. We need to cut our emissions by 85% to get to that point. Or keep them constant while importing about 1.7 billion people.
If it isn't already, this abomination will get pervasive.
Maybe. Ukraine apparently did this two years ago as an experiment, then decided not to continue experimenting, much less make it standard procedure.
Full autonomy was obviously one possible solution when the Russians got good at jamming drone communications. The other was switching to wired control, via kilometers-long spools of ultrathin fiberoptic cable. Ukraine has settled on the latter. This is covering the front lines with a massive spiderweb of fiberoptic cable, which is also a cost, but Ukraine has apparently decided it's what they prefer.
> Collateral damage is sadly unavoidable.
Remember that when you see the next Ukrainian news that Russia bombed a random civilian building
No. Invaders don't get the benefit of the doubt.
Is that correct?
I'm trained as a righty (born ambi) so my fighting stance is left side out, left arm blocking, right arm striking, initially.
That results in hips and stance angled to my right.
I'm cross-eye dominant so I always second-guess, but I don't remember the other students in martial arts class being different.
True Threats have a legal standard and specificity of person, place, and time are elements.
Criminal Threatening usually has a state statute.
The summary sounds much more like "muh feels" and conclusory pleading so it's probably not true to the legal standard.
How many arrests were made?
Also getting arrested for a social media post is a special kind of stupid on all sides
Posts are almost always powerless and can just get you in trouble. Don't do it to blow off steam. Or for clout.
Not worth it, get out there and take action if you mean it. Don't blab about illegal fantasies.
like a bounty-seeker scorned.
Shoulda just paid 'em.
He sounds quite knowledgeable and it looks like he'll continue whipping Defender until morale improves.
It's worth noting that the black market would pay handsomely for most of his discoveries but retribution is sweeter than cash.
I get the sentiment.
Also the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. An informant brought it to the FBI's attention before the attempt was made, but it seems to have been a relatively serious conspiracy.
This stuff is not just talk.
that particular amendment was voted down, bozo - the system works, no hand wringing required
doesn't mean hate speech doesn't exist
This is an example of the broken windows theory from sociology (not to be confused with the broken window fallacy from economics), which states that if visible signs of low-level disorder (e.g. broken windows in unused buildings) are tolerated, then more serious forms of social disorder will occur as well.
This definitely holds in online fora. As the level of abuse you allow rises linearly, the abuse that occurs grows exponentially. Up to a point, I guess. Once you're 4chan there's just nowhere worse to go unless people start using your forum to explicitly plan and conduct crimes. But if you try to draw the line at "anything that isn't illegal is perfectly fine", your forum is going to get nasty. Slashdot addresses this with community moderation, but that only works as long as the community isn't too permissive. If Slashdot were to someday get its own Eternal September (not likely;
Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.