"I would burn my equity to the ground in a heartbeat for a 1% higher chance we make it out of this situation alive. I expect a great many of my colleagues... would as well,"

- AI Safety guy whose list of past "Nontrivial mistakes" includes, "I was confused about the tradeoffs of optimization." https://drakethomas.net/wrong.html

Hello! We have been advocating against ring for about four years now, and Iâ(TM)d like to think that along with many other organizations and govt entities, we have made a difference.

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-01-29/ring-app-shares-personal-data-eff-finds

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/amazon-rings-end-end-encryption-what-it-means

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/ftc-forces-ring-take-user-privacy-seriously

Do you mean the fact that they (weâ"I work there) accept cryptocurrency donations? Or was there some other connection you are thinking?

EFF's brief, which was summarized in one part of this decision, is available here: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-counterman-v-colorado-brief

"Without sufficient protection for unintentionally threatening speech, a high school student who is still learning norms around appropriate language could easily go to prison for sending another student violent music lyrics, or for unreflectingly using language he read in an online forum. “[A] drunken joke” in bad taste can lead to criminal prosecution. Perez v. Florida, 580 U. S. 1187 (2016) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in denial of certiorari). In the heat of the moment, someone may post an enraged comment under a news story about a controversial topic. Another person might reply equally heatedly. In a Nation that has never been timid about its opinions, political or otherwise, this is commonplace."

This tracker on these bills is helpful. They are metastasizing. https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/age-verification-bills/

As an organizer against this policy, I know there's a lot of FUD on both sides. The main issue here is that the policy as it was written would have allowed "police to use robotic deadly force without first attempting alternatives."

Ignore the robot aspect of it. If you believe police should be able to use deadly force as a first resort, I doubt I can convince you that this is a bad thing. If you believe that police should (even at risk to themselves) attempt alternative options before blowing up people, then you are probably in agreement that this is a bad thing.

That's really the long and short of it.