What do AI companies have to do with anything? The prompts would be generated by the company running the site, not the AI company. The quality of performance depends on the quality of the prompt and what data it has access to far more than on the model training.

That would affect the buyer's rights with respect to the seller, not not his rights with respect to the gaming company.

I wonder whether this is legal. Riot has the right to ban players who cheat, but maybe not the right to misidentify them based on the hardware they are using. In this case, since the game is free, there may be no contract of which this is a breach. In the case of a paid game, it seems that it would be a breach of contract.

You slow the initial spread of posts for long enough to throw AI at the problem and analyze the factual accuracy of every post, or at least every post that any user flags as misinformation or factually incorrect.

For posts that are obvious satire (e.g. from known satire sites, etc.), flag them with a clear "This post is satire" warning at the beginning of the post.

For posts that are just flat-out lies, mass cancel the post automatically:

1. Prevent it from appearing in anyone else's feed or spreading.
2. Fan out the ban scan to recognize similar posts from people who saw the original post, recursively cancel those.
3. Backtrack to see if any posts that the original poster might have seen posted similar information from which the false post was derived, and recursively cancel those, including fan-out and backtracking from there, etc. until you have a complete graph of every post that appears to be derived from the lie.
4. Bulk distribute a post to everyone who saw the original post, explaining what was untruthful and why the bot believes that it was untruthful, providing factual citations to refute the original post. You do this in bulk to everyone who saw the original post all at once, not through organic spread, making it faster to refute a lie than to spread it originally.

In your fact checking ban post, you make it possible for anyone who believes that the cancellation was unjustified to submit external citations as evidence of its accuracy. After 72 hours, all citations submitted by anyone who saw the fact checking ban post are deduplicated, consolidated, and sent to a hundred human reviewers. These reviewers vote to either: A. reinstate the original post, B. reinstate the original post with clarification at the beginning (this post is mostly correct except XXX, this post is satire and is not intended to be taken as truth, this post is an opinion piece that disagrees with broadly held scientific consensus and the evidence presented herein should be treated with skepticism unless proven correct by larger/stronger/more robust studies, etc.), or C. uphold the ban.

If a post is reinstated, every post flagged as a consequence of the original flagging is also reinstated in a similar fashion, with clarification if applicable.

In other words, make it easy for users to report that something is a lie, make the resulting fact checking be aggressive at immediately halting the spread of things that are clearly untruthful, and make corrections spread faster than the lies did originally.

The last critical piece is the ability for an individual user to choose whether to see posts that have been flagged as being lies. If they choose to repost something that is already flagged, it will be seen only by other people who have chosen to opt out of hiding factually erroneous posts, so the spread will be mostly limited to those who have already bought into one or more conspiracy theories, but that's still moderation rather than outright banning of the content. And people would be free to write new posts that point out that a post on a subject has been banned and telling people why they think it should not be banned. Of course, in most cases, that will paint the person as a nutter, but at least you'll know. :-)

Unfortunately, at some point, in the U.S., certain political groups decided that things that are contrary to established facts are "opinions" that cannot be questioned, rather than lies, so demanding factual accuracy will be seen by many as political bias, which is why this will probably never happen.

Any time I get a political ad, I assume that their position is questionable enough to require spamming me with ads, and therefore that I should probably do the opposite of what they're advertising.

Moderation is censorship by definition. So no, there cannot be ways to moderate those things without censorship.

What you mean is that governments requiring companies to censor things is bad. And in general, I agree.

Corporate-driven censorship is also generally bad, where corporations censor things to protect their interests or boost their revenue without a legitimate public interest in mind.

The real problem is that social media does not give the public control over what they consume, and subjects us to increasingly low-quality garbage from increasingly distant voices in a desperate attempt to drive interaction in spite of a declining user base. And that effectively becomes corporate censorship, as the garbage drowns out the organic content from our friends that we actually went to the site to see. Yet it is by design. Sites like Facebook appear to completely ignore our "I don't want to see this" signals and continue to shovel this garbage. As a result, I go to Facebook an order of magnitude less often than I did ten years ago, but at the same time, I know that other people find the algorithmically driven shovelware to be compelling, and they're the ones being manipulated by this stuff.

With that said, I don't want government censorship. I want government to require social media to give control to users, to publicly disclose how their algorithms shape what users see, to allow independent audits to ensure that their algorithms are working for the public good rather than just for the corporate good, etc. We need more access to information, not less, but we also need to be able to filter what we see. Because if news media, etc. is not serving as a filter to show us the most important information and filter out unverified information and clear misinformation, then we need tools to help us moderate what we see, and maybe by sending those signals, also influence what our friends see and reduce the garbage a bit.

The problem is that there are propagandists in the first place. Here's the way I see it:

• Early 1980s: The 24-hour news cycle made people demand immediate access to news.
• Mid-1980s through today: Low pay, media consolidation, newspaper closures, and mass layoffs made journalism an increasingly unattractive career, causing most of the best and brightest to leave the field or not enter it, resulting in a gradual decline in the news media's ability to lead interviews, call politicians on outright lies, etc.
• 1987: Fairness doctrine eliminated, allowing the rise of biased talking head infotainment shows.
• 1996: Fox News started broadcasting with the explicit intent to create a right-biased news source.
• 2003: MSNBC took a leftward shift to counter Fox News.
• 2009: Social media reached peak users, where gaining more eyes was impractical, so the only way to increase ad revenue was to increase screen time or increase ad count or both, and increasing ad count would reduce screen time in the absence of a mitigating factor, so sites began shifting from most recent posts from your friends to most clicked/viewed, resulting in the rise of clickbait.
• 2013: The Russian government formed the Internet Research Agency, a.k.a. Glavset, a Russian company tasked with online propaganda, including disinformation and trolling campaigns on social media.
• 2016 through 2022 or so: Social media began showing more and more content from people who are not your friends or friends of friends and groups that you have never joined in a desperate attempt to get more screen time out of a plateauing (and later declining) daily active user base.
• 2022: A far-right-wing propagandist buys Twitter.
• 2023: Glavset shut down, though it is generally assumed that other groups took up its mission.

The social media dates are based on Facebook. Other social media behaved similarly at around the same time, plus or minus a couple of years.

But ultimately, it's all about companies focusing on profit above all else, without the slightest bit of concern over the negative impact of their choices. And as long as social media companies — and media and news sources in general — are predominantly for-profit entities instead of nonprofit corporations, they will be at best marginally harmful to society, and at worst, massively so. The profit gained from using hype and propaganda and clickbait and massive amounts of slant to drive viewers/readers is simply too strong a motivation to overcome as long as the focus of an organization is making profit, rather than breaking even.

And yeah, social media is part of the problem, but the mainstream media abdicated their responsibility to inform the public at least a decade earlier, and arguably three decades earlier, creating the information vacuum that social media filled. And the fact that it's a lot harder to refute a lie than to publish the truth in the first place made social media's increasingly extreme amplification of troll campaigns incredibly harmful, but the public's tendency to repost whatever garbage they see and the ease with which people can repost things they see to broader and broader audience made that problem much, much worse.

So yes, traditional social media is a large net harm to the public as a whole. Instead of helping bring us together, it has largely driven us apart. We would be much better off if Facebook groups ceased to exist and became separate discussion forums like we had before. We would be much better off if public Facebook posts were banned going forward, requiring people to actually copy and paste before sharing other people's posts beyond the friends or followers of the original person, or at most, one hop away. We would be much better off if sites like Facebook were forced to allow us to disable algorithmic spam in our feeds, including all posts suggested from people that our friends follow, groups distantly related to groups that we're in, etc. And so on.

He would be serving time.

Why hasn't Sam Altman been arrested yet?
Why is OpenAI allowed to continue to operate?
Clearly it's a criminal organization.

Honestly... Since when reshuffling in a company's upper management is of any interest to anybody other than the people working for that individual at that company?

What next? They're gonna replace Bob at accounting because he didn't use AI to format his Excel sheets?

Dittto what thegarbz said below me. To that I'd add the heat waves in Europe, the fish swimming north in the Atlantic to escape the warm water, The shortened winter in the U.S., the hotter summers and generally warmer Earth all around.

Another thing you ignore is that climate normally changes slowly due to natural processes. However, the Earth is a system, it has feedback loops and feedforward loops. One of the things we have yet to contend with, but it is coming, is the Arctic permafrost is melting due to our increasing the heat in the atmosphere. This will increase CO2 and methane in the atmosphere, thus causing further and faster melting. So if we wind up creating a rather non-virtuous cycle, there'll be nothing we can do to stop frying ourselves off the planet. One of the reasons for the feedfordward here is that when you melt snow and ice, it doesn't reflect light as well as it did. If you melt down to ground, then that ground absorbs the light and heats up. The CO2 and methane now have heat source to enjoy.

I'd list all the bad consequences of this, but life is short. I'll just mention one: mosquitos. They really, really like warmth. And they carry a host of nasty diseases. Got all yer shots? At least vaccines we have? The antivaxers are a poster child for your line of thinking. We don't need no stinking shots, we don't recall measles being a thing. It is now, thanks to the antivaxers. Explain that to the parents who believed in that bullshit immediately after the funeral for their kid who died of measles, or worse, to the parents of kids who cannot get vaxed.

We'd have to claw back all the data that got funneled to Peter Thiel's organization, DOGE siphoned off a lot and sent it to them.

There's no regaining the trust of America's former allies. They now know that the American political system is as much to blame as la Presidenta for enabling an idiot like him to get the top spot. They cannot trust that Americans won't be similarly stupid in the future and decide, based on their myopic concerns, to burn down institutions that actually work; they are too stupid to understand how they work.

The Ministry of Christian War Crimes will now have to be de-wormed from infestation caused by the current asshole. He even is setting up a Christian ministry inside the organization devoted to Christian hate. He is pop. the upper ranks with Nazis, and making the organization anathema to everything America stood for before la Presidenta took over. And all this before we lose another war. And that war won't be over Taiwan. el Bunko will do a deal with Emperor Xi: they get Taiwan and we get to buy Taiwanese chips at inflated prices and subject to cut off whenever Emperor Xi has a bad day.

We'll have to dismantle the Ministry of Propaganda that la Presidenta is setting up in the gov. His silly chatbot is only the beginning. Project 2025 has big plans for the Ministry. If they are able and with the proper funding of genetic research, they'll recreate Josef Goebbels to run it again.

There's no replacing the trust the judicial system had in the justice dept when that department can be used as la Presidenta's personal vendetta sycophants. And that's not even counting all the la Presidenta bootlickers he and the R's in Congress have inserted into the judiciary. The justice dept has misled grand juries. And when they have a case in front of a judge that is not one of their toadies, e.g. Ailieen Cannon, Emil Bove, etc., they find a justice dept. lawyer who knows nothing about the case and hence cannot answer any of the judge's questions.

There's no replacing the lack of honor in Federal Law Enforcement short of disbanding ICE, the FBI, and a few others, and rebuilding from scratch. Those organizations have been corrupted, just like everything else el Bunko touches.

We might have a shot of restoring the Treasury and the IRS, but we'd have to go through those organizations with a scalpel and excise the filth with which la Presidenta and Project 2025 have infected those organizations.

And there is no non-generational change method to put the racist genie back into the bottle that la Presidenta has let out. He didn't cause the racism, but he's made it safe to be racist in the America, a nation built by immigrants, slavery, stealing Indian land, lack of human rights, etc.

If you were a billionaire, then you'd have nothing to fear from the IRS or their rules, the rules do not apply to them. This is what happens when you put a person convicted of fraud in the Oval Oriface. All one need do is look at his corruption while in office. Does his alleged justice dept or IRS call him on it? Do the R's in Congress get their heads out of their asses, sew on some penises, and start acting like they can think for themselves?

You are looking at Chat-Rat 2.0. On the first day it came out, it would have given you the answer that Biden won 2020. Reporters checked this the day it came out, and rechecked the day after.

Now we have a Chat-Rat that is no better than an el Bunko Bootlicker.

There's nothing wrong with knowing your own limitations and acting accordingly. Had Mr. Zuckerberg had that sort of self-knowledge, he might have avoided lighting 80-billion-with-a-b dollars on fire and renaming his social media company after a technology that nobody wanted.

Or just ask Peter Thiel, according to him the anti-Christ should be along any day now. Hint Peter, look in the mirror, you don't have to wait. Oh, and the Apocalypse in the Bible was talking about Roman Empire, nothing further afield than that.