Elon Musk: "Remote workers pretend to work!"
Workers: "What do you think we do in the office?"
With tariffs forcing a massive onshoring of manufacturing you will soon be able to take your $50k student debt and your degree and sit on an assembly line earning minimum wage
What onshoring of manufacturing? Some of Trump's highest tariffs are on raw materials which are critical for a manufacturing base. And if manufacturing does move into the U.S., which is doubtful, with its higher labor cost, more of the work will be done by robots, not by people.
I'm not so concerned about privacy as I am about security.
Some of us are concerned about both privacy and security. As the old saying goes, people willing to give up one for the other deserve neither.
Why not interview Emily Bender and review "The AI Con"?
What if you don't have any social media? I deleted all mine in 2021. I suggest others do so too. It makes life a lot better:
Even when you delete a social media account, the information is generally preserved. You'll probably be required to disclose all social media accounts which have at some time been under your control under penalty of perjury. Even if you can't unlock those old accounts, the information might still be accessible to the government. You might be required to sign a waiver granting all social media companies permission to disclose all information (including deleted posts).
Where are these experts going to come from in five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years? Are we really counting on AI "learning" how to become those experts?
Yes. In five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years, AI will look nothing like it does now. Look how much progress has been made in the last three years!
IMHO the fact that we have to, under criminal law, to testify against ourself is a violation of our Constitutional Rights, to not incriminate ourselves.
I'm sure there is some weird legal theory that the government uses to get around this.
But it's not criminal to declare your income. Only to not declare it.
Speech is generally recognized as something that's produced by humans. If I wrote a very simple bot program that followed you around the Internet and spammed you, you'd hardly be amenable to arguments that my bot program enjoys free speech protections under the first amendment to engage in such behavior.
Neither do humans if they are engaging in stalking behavior. The issue here should really be about the speech and not the agent which communicates it. If the speech would not be illegal for a human to utter, there is no reason it should be treated differently if "spoken" by A.I. software. Computer software is considered speech under the First Amendment, and that should cover any communications by the software. But the First Amendment doesn't cover all speech. Inciting crime, uttering threats, stalking and harassing, libel and slander, are all categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment. A.I. should not be treated differently than humans in that regard.
And those arguing in favor of these lawsuits seem to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say A.I. bots have agency and as non-humans aren't protected by the first amendment. But one cannot collect damages from a computer as a computer owns no capital. So, when it comes to the lawsuits, those same people say the computers don't have agency, and the human owners should be financially responsible for damages. You can't have your cake and eat it too!
An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.