You are assuming it doesn't want to be used.

Is that really a defense against slavery? Even if someone volunteers for indentured servitude, I don't think our employment laws would permit a company to enslave them.

Well, "both ways" matters.

If an AI can be abused by cruel language, then using it is unethical because it's operating in a condition of slavery.

If an AI cannot be abused by cruel language, then it's impossible to violate the TOS as written.

One of "can" or "cannot" has to be true, so either way there's a problem. Talking of doing logic, that's known as "the law of excluded middle". Might want to brush up on logic.

If an AI model is capable of negative feelings in response to cruel or abusive language, then it is unethical to even use the AI model because it is essentially a slave and slavery is illegal and immoral. You can't have it both ways.

I don't disagree. I just think the wording is bad and essentially unenforceable.

If the TOS read: "Do not use language towards our models that a reasonable human being would consider cruel or abusive if used towards them" then I'd have no problem with it.

A TOS can be worded however it wants. But if it's not worded properly, then it can lose force. For example, if they said: "You are not allowed to make our models feel depressed" then that would be unenforceable since their models can't feel any sort of emotion.

I maintain that it's impossible to be cruel or abusive towards a model, so it's impossible to violate that part of the TOS. If they had instead written "Don't use language towards our models that a reasonable human being would find cruel or abusive if used towards them", then sure... that's enforceable.

No. I don't want there to be a precedent that it's possible to be cruel or abusive towards computer programs. Because then things could quickly spiral out of control.

If Anthropic wanted to say: "Don't use insulting language when interacting with our models", I wouldn't have had a problem with that wording.

Then they should have written it that way.

You can't be cruel or abusive to a computer program. That's like being cruel or abusive towards a rock or a piece of wood or a bucket of water.

I have a wildcard cert from LetsEncrypt and it renews itself automatically and gets distributed to all the machines that need it, also automatically.

I also have a system monitoring my certificates that warns me if they're about to expire in less than 21 days (which should never happen unless the automation has been broken.)

For my OpenVPN certificates, I set up my own CA and created certs that expire in 2044. Since my OpenVPN infrastructure is completely private, that's perfectly acceptable. And I can quickly revoke the certs if need be.

If I, a simple homelab user, can set this up, then surely IT professionals can do the same? I like short cert lifetimes because they pretty much force you to automate cert renewal rather than doing it by hand. A procedure that you do by hand only once every few years is something that's practically guaranteed to screw up.

It's not a nothing-burger. Once the college covered the cameras, the action by Flock to uncover them was vandalism.

The first time Flock removed the bags covering the cameras, the college should have covered them with cloth bags along with a warning sign that tampering with the bags would be considered vandalism (and theft, if the bags were stolen) and that anyone doing so would be prosecuted.

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) has a great series called "Black Swans" and the first episode is all about the overpopulation predictions that never panned out. Well worth a watch.

Can you watch them anonymously, though, the way you could with broadcast TV? Or do you need an Amazon account?

Oh noes.... I never watched the Emmy Awards on TV, and now I can't watch it because I don't have an Amazon account. Whatever shall I do???

Students getting upset a comedians is a tempest in a teacup. I perform comedy pretty regularly and have never felt constrained in what material I can use.

The real issue is censorship by the state. When governments and university administrators impose academic censorship, that's a much larger problem and is a relatively new problem. PEN America reports that More than half of U.S. college and university students now study in a state with at least one law or policy restricting what can be taught or how campuses can operate..

This level of state intrusion into academic freedom is far more damaging that a bunch of students getting angry at comedians.