I'm sure I'm not the only American that's willing to host and support The Free Press.
In America, UK has no power (since 1776)
Imagine the political possibilities if we hosted this on American soil on American servers.
I've noticed over the last eight months or so that a lot of large providers have made shifts in their service for email, and the services that are provided for email that kind of follow this path, in that suddenly it's become more expensive for them in some way and they typically either try to pass it on to customers or shift their operations around, etcetera, to make up for that, So I'm wondering and I'm asking flat out: The
I haven't done anti-spam operations in a long time but it's weird because I'm getting signals that DKIM/DMARC is suddenly more expensive and I'm also getting signals that outbound email ops are suddenly expensive enough that It seems related, but I'm not sure what exactly is going on here. I wonder if this is just due to antispam operations getting so costly?
Can anybody else shed some light on this? Please?
What you're not understanding is that they want to roll KYC out everywhere because it's considered a security thing to know who you're dealing with.
Anonymous accounts are the biggest security problem most tech companies have; This is why accounts are specific to an individual and are not allowed to be for a family or a group of people. The idea that an account is owned by multiple people is flat out insane; It might be used by multiple people but for liability purposes it can only be owned by 1 person, Because they need somebody to blame. A company's rights are not kept unless they know exactly who is doing what at all times, It's just safer for the company that they never allow any kind of account that isn't validated as only belonging to a specific person.
I love the idea of anonymous Internet access but I don't believe that it will be something that will ever be protected or allowed in the future; once they start doing this stuff and make the claim that it's about protecting the children or whatever, every single website will have an age limit which means every single website will have some kind of requirement that they opt in to identity validation and therefore at that point the things that you do online will simply be tracked by that company for profit and so the issue there is your privacy will only be respected when respecting your privacy is profitable because it gives the company that has the data on you a Moat against the company that doesn't have that data on you.
The problem there is that only websites that can afford to do that kind of tracking will be allowed to exist and so you have a direct battle against the poor and the rich, you're effectively making the statement that unless you're rich enough to track every single user that creates an account with full KYC and age validation for every single account, You're not allowed to start a website that allows people to log in.
And that's wrong.
I don't consent to have my data bought and sold by people that I don't know about or didn't consent to be allowed to do so; And I certainly wouldn't want a potential business or website not allowed to exist simply because we were just too poor to be able to support the $100,000 fee for this kind of thing up front that is required to even get onboarded before we still have to then go burn through credits per authorization attempt... because yes I've attempted to look into this, and I see what the requirements are, and the monetary requirements that it imposes on startups are the same as What is needed to hire multiple FAANG experienced principal level engineer's salary for every year of operation.
This is just entrenched tech companies trying to make it so that startups can't compete with them, as part of overregulation and KYC rollouts.
I used to enjoy going to the Redmond Campus library and would just spend my lunch hour finding books that I could check out and read (Or just buy flat out from other sources) on topics that were normally not available to me because of the technical nature of the books and the fact that those technical books are so hard to get otherwise; There just isn't a nice way to do discovery on random technical topics I might like as a polymath without being able to be surrounded by amazing amounts of books on them.
Sure, I could find the title and then go look it up on Amazon or whatever... but there was no way for me to discover that book independently on my own unless I just dove the pile of books available to me at the MS Library.. so I did, It was one of the best parts of working at Microsoft Research, And every time I returned to Microsoft Research coming into that library was like returning to visit an old friend. One that is now lost. I cannot fathom what will possibly replace that library because I just don't see a replacement of any kind actually working.
This is important because what it does is it shows that hiring a human software development engineer is going to be required for that to be considered a business asset or to have some kind of lack of liability from it, Because a non-human won't have the same rights and therefore cannot sign off on transferring those rights to a company.
It also means that code written by AI has Liability that code written by humans does not, Because code written by humans is free speech but code written by AI is not.
Clearly separating human freedom of speech from AI software output also allows us as humans to differentiate between the human that can be hired to do the work legally and the robot that the company bought to maintain profits by not having to hire a human being considered a corporate liability; And it shows that hiring humans to code gives your company rights you don't otherwise get from an AI because an AI is not creating free speech.
It also carves out a dedicated place for professional tech people in a world where you can buy a version of C-3PO or JARVIS to code for you.
What was the valuable thing about it besides the people that were using it? Wasn't it just built on open protocols that anyone of us could just simply build a clone of quickly?
What's stopping somebody from building the next Skype and actually doing it right?
I think one of the most frustrating aspects of this isn't even the fact that it's an all female team because I could be totally cool with that if they were all scientists that had earned the position but for me I think the biggest imposition of this is the fact that people who have dedicated their entire life to engineering and science and have competed and earned that place were simply tossed aside so that a pop star that uses auto tune - aka they were not even dedicated enough to be able to sing well - can actually take the spot instead.
Some people are going to be against the fact that they're all women, and they're probably going to make jokes about that plane crash or whatever, but from my perspective as a scientist I'm looking at the value this gives human civilization...and I honestly think that Jeff Bezos just projecting that his current relationship won't end well because he's already attracted to other women so much he's going to allow them to ride his rocket.
I just had this experience. It can't even summarize or use data from prior conversations if you ask it to, but it will try to lie to you and claim otherwise Until you explicitly call out the fact that it's not working and then it will thank you and admit that it actually can't read prior conversations, Or at least that's what it just told me 5 seconds ago.
The last theater I went into had explicitly banned phones because they created light during the movie and were a distraction for other moviegoers to the point where they literally set up a system where they would kick out people who had their phones out in the middle of the movie.
So I don't think the theaters themselves will like this much and if they try to get them with the idea of more revenue this way it's just going to backfire I suspect, Because I would never want to go to a movie theater where we had to use our phone for something; people go to these places to get away from all that.
Not all true. This was my entire life for a long time because I did a lot of consulting and contracting in Washington.
In Washington it's actually a lot more complicated than just one law; in Washington state - because of things like the equal opportunity act, The laws on who owns what IP based on ownership of hardware hardware used (The company doesn't always clearly own the IP for your code made as a work product if you own the hardware it was created on, this is why every big tech company in Washington and California will generally issue you a laptop if you're a tech worker it's not just to make sure that you have something to work on it's also to make sure that there's a chain of ownership that they can call on in order to own the final work product of your output) and other things, they're just generally considered illegal/unenforceable, and while they do technically exist, having them actually be enforceable is the tricky and hard part that most companies can never make stick, Especially since the courts are generally finding any agreement that doesn't cover the employees needs with garden leave as simply unenforceable.
I've talked to several lawyers about this because I was in a tricky situation at one time I needed to learn all about this, and I was literally told that these kind of things happen all the time and it's mostly just companies blustering and threatening people with non competes that will never ever ever ever ever be seen by the court as legitimate because they were not being paid during that time (Garden leave is a strict requirement in WA for non-competes to be considered legit, even if they fire you, So if they say you cant compete with them for 18 months and cant work anywhere else, that's a lie, your allowed to work, your allowed to feed yourself, if they don't pay you garden leave for the duration of your non compete, then it's not enforceable)
In Washington state asking somebody to do a non compete is a great way to have them tell you that don't ever want to work for you; But there is also section C of the actual law at https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/def... to worry about, as it sets up companies for large sudden payout risks if they try that, especially at scale, since a non-compete is not actually enforceable in WA if they have to lay off somebody and can't pay them for the entire length of the non compete for garden leave.
Needless to say it's not as cut and dry as one single law and if you're saying that non competes are legal in Washington then I would say that I have never ever seen one be actually enforceable, and the few cases that my lawyer has said that they were enforceable were specific special cases where the person was getting garden leave in full because otherwise the courts generally find that non competes are not enforceable in Washington if the company is not paying garden leave for the full duration.
States like Washington and California have actively made non competes of this kind illegal and so one of the fun things about this is that it's becoming public knowledge that something called garden leave exists.
Every possible risk you could have with a person is the same risk you could have with AI.
Why? Simply because of the fact that most people consider it to have the same agency or whatever as a human, and often mistake its output for one.
Once it passed the Turing test, that didn't matter anymore. Companies decided they were going to treat it like a human naked stamp out and justice create workers to do things as needed and once they started doing that it didn't matter if that was the correct way of doing it or not it became the way they did it so people have to adapt and humans adapt very well.
Everything that they're going out of their way to act like they invented are still things that we as humans are fully aware of as risk already, because we know that humans can be dangerous. The difference here is that humans can be thrown in jail or go through a legal system while an AI has absolutely no accountability.
It explicitly said that it's performing / faking actions just like a sociopath would.
It does not feel emotion.
It only mirrors them back.
Just like a sociopath.
This has been covered in many books. Crossing the chasm is one of the bigger ones. These guys aren't even using the right data so how the heck can they be successful? They need to train their model on more accurate data!
This is just a publicity stunt. It didn't sound like her at all, but that movie didn't do well, so she's trying to get some kind of redemption arc out of it.
They literally spent $23 million to make that movie, and they've only made at most 48 million which basically means that they've made their money back, but it wasn't considered a big success. And that's only when you consider the international stuff, domestically, it barely made its money back.
She's literally just censoring open AI because she wants to try to make money from this drama.
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
