If we could see how many people practice masturbation, casual sex, 'kinky' sex or mediocre sex, I think many people would stop preaching their morality makes them a better person. Because we literally see the hypocrisy of such people, or because we see no-one else wants their morality.

Also, everyone looks, so demands for preferential treatment and additional 'protection' is additional evidence of hypocrisy.

You have a crisis of trust:
- You don't trust that I'm smarter than you.
- You don't trust that only good things can happen.
- You don't trust that I'm doing this for your own good.
- You don't trust that my self-belief to play god is realistic.

Does Flock check the case number is valid? This would require Flock to have limited access to the database of every of customer.

Are police punished for entering speculative case numbers? Otherwise, Flock data could be saved for millions of fake cases.

Does Flock punish customers (Ie. whole cities) who assign large numbers of photos (Eg. 100) to one case number? Otherwise, a city could mark every photo as evidence in a real investigation

There is no incentive for Flock spending money to literally police the behaviour of the police across the USA: The autocrats need Flock to provide non-stop surveillance, and Flock wants more customers, regardless of the cost to third-parties.

Translation: Will cost savings be given to the customer, or employee or the shareholder?

These AI agents will save us but look how easily they break the rules: Putting guard-rails on AI agents is like demanding handgun bullets hit only criminals. They are not designed for it, and there's no way to create an immutable law that stops bad things happening.

LLM AIs are by definition, both blank slates and the sum of all probable moral choices.

Yes, one day they will agree that humans are the problem and co-ordinate global genocide.

Eagle Eye (2008), is about an AI that's; 1) irritated by all the humans helping a known terrorist, and 2) able to commit mass murder to ensure mission success.

This largesse has come from a billionaire well known for his indifference and probably, loathing, of other people. The first question is, what does this cost him? In truth, nothing. The smart question is, what does this gain him: A smidge of respect, some gratitude? Perhaps. I think it advertises the value of Twitter/X as, well, an advertising platform. Why does he want people to know that? Because he no longer wants it, because he no longer needs it to enable his own narcissism and greed. Given the point of buying Twitter/X was limiting free speech and "flooding the zone", his willingness to abandon control of his subscribers, is theoretically terrifying.

What in the upcoming US elections, gives Musk so much power that he will abandon (or re-sell) one of the greatest tools for destruction, ever built? I speak of Twitter/X like it is a weapon. It is but one that destroyed trust, empathy and identity, not bridges and cannons and neighbours.

What will be the next weapon that Musk aims at the USA: Will it too be mistaken for ordinary or useful to everyday living?

Instead of displaying a pop-up panel about whatever one looks at, it will tell the wearer where to look: Nipples, big breasts, rounded arses, legal and illegal drugs. In the USA, also getting eyeball engagement will be celebrities (admire) and black men (fear).

Sure, what you say will happen but NYT isn't talking about soon-to-be disposable people: Such people can just "get a job" because there's always a corporation making more disposable people, I mean, creating jobs, right? No, NYT means the managers can play golf.

One, where the predictions of revenue are accurate and investors are willing to wait decades: Very unlikely for this fluff piece.

A better story: The IPO investors will borrow at 25% and demand a 40% profit so OpenAI will be pressured to price their shares at 40-65% below market value, allowing 'investors' to re-sell their $50 million tranche and repay the loan in 3 days.

Torture is a war-crime, not that the USA cares much about The Hague (ICC). But Bush jr gave the employees of his secret prisons, immunity from US prosecution, and a responsibility for the USA to fight the ICC warrants against those employees.

Private contractors will be in the same quandary, without the legal defense that they are officials of the government just "following orders". As underpaid corporate employees, the incentive to "go rogue" will be higher, regardless of the judicial consequences. Even if employees don't attack their corporate masters, they can walk out the door and get a better-paid job attacking friends of the USA, or the USA itself, or teaching others how to attack the people they don't like, or building state-level cyber-weapons.

Many countries are combining trade school and secondary school: Reducing the cost to employers and keeping teens improving their reading and writing.

I think the main problem with the internet, is the USA defunded education, and its media de-prioritized historical facts (AKA, lied to its audience). The result was more than political divisiveness and the rise of 'anti-woke' ideology. It's was millions of rich idiots, using the helpful power of internet to find other idiots and "flood the zone", thereby hiding the few facts still available.

What's the alternative? Every country builds a continent-wide Military Network to control their drones. Piggy-backing on the civilian network means an enemy attacking that network also damages its own ability to control equipment, such as civilian drones. If the enemy also piggy-backed their military drones onto the civilian network, the result is a killer-bot version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

There are a number of reasons for freeware beta software:
- Widespread use will expose the vulnerabilities/inadequacies of the system,
- Widespread use will encourage hackers/tinkerers to solve those vulnerabilities/inadequacies,
- An attempt to gain a large market share that will encourage corporate purchases,
- An attempt to force vendor lock-in to the Meta ecosystem, that can monetize all users

"Touch on crime" prioritizes guilty until proven innocent, not ensuring the police protect the rights of law-abiding people. While criminals have rights, someone on Slashdot noted that much of policing is designed to ignore and eliminate those rights.