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!
We're in an age where social media is the norm, and schools are still grappling with the idea that cyber bullying on social media is a school phenomenon but does not actually occur on campus. From a policy perspective most schools are used to the idea of managing the physical space of the school and the community of children there, but has no idea how to handle cyber bullying despite a reported 21.6% of high schoolers face cyber bullying from their peers, much of it happening on campus and off.
Do you really want schools to be policing your children's Internet use off campus?
They have no such right. That's a right given to people, not companies.
That is simply incorrect. Companies have free speech rights too. Do you think they shouldn't. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN are all companies. Should they not have free speech rights?
⦠is why a private company is able to have access to this data in the first place.
They are an insurance company. They need that information to properly insure drivers and comply with state laws.
Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer