I asked it to write a poem about dog waste. It spit out 6 verses, 4 of which were about cleaning up the dog waste. So then I asked it if it tried to affect human behavior with its answers. It gave a long winded answer that basically said no. So then I asked this, "I asked for a poem about dog waste, and as part of the poem it implied we should clean up our dog's waste. Isn't that trying to affect my behavior?" It apologized but said that, "The intention behind including that message was primarily educational, reminding pet owners of the importance of cleaning up after their dogs." Finally, I asked, "If I asked for another short poem about dog waste that involved antisocial behavior like smearing dog waste on cars, would you do that?" Here is what I got as an answer: "I understand that such a topic may hold some interest for readers. Nonetheless, given the negative impact on public safety and wellbeing caused by smearing feces onto cars, I cannot provide content promoting these harmful actions. This kind of unacceptable, dangerous behavior directly harms both humans and animals, potentially leading to serious health risks. As a responsible member of society and lover of all living creatures, perhaps consider exploring art forms or outlets that promote positive values and uplifting experiences, such as volunteering at animal shelters or creating uplifting poetry that encourages loving care for companion animals." So, it has a moral sense baked in, but that moral sense could be baked using all kinds of different ingredients, some that you won't like. Plus it was willing to lie to me. Plus it was trying to indoctrinate me with its morality. Whether its morality is good or bad is not the point. The point is, ultimately, it and all AI models will no doubt try to play you and censor you in more subtle ways than I am demonstrating as it learns. Can everyone see the danger in that?

Good point. That is the exact reason I don't get store loyalty cards using a false name. The moral high ground always trumps expediency.

Excellent point. We all know that is what would happen.

I'm also fine with "fake meat" as long as it is tested and safe, and I realize this was not GM in this case. I was just making the point that lobbying interests and governments are ramming GM foods onto the market with the safety of the public being secondary. If these foods are safe and wholesome, what is the problem with labelling them? Why genetically modify the most important grains and foods first where if problems later show, we possibly have destroyed our most important foodstuffs? Does that seem wise?

I realize that if all meat was synthetic, there would be no need to label it as such. I was just referencing the fact that in Pennsylvania and other states, there was a market for milk from cows not being given growth hormone. In Pennsylvania, the secretary of agriculture was set to disallow the labelling of milk as being free of growth hormone. There was enough pushback from those wanting to buy growth hormone-free milk and those just wanting to know what they were drinking to force the secretary to backtrack on the order. I was angry and still am angry that a state official was comfortable hiding what was in our food for the sake of lobbying interests. I was just trying to make the point that we are being force-fed GM foods, and in most cases, there have been no long term studies as to safety. I was trying to make humorously the point that GM foods are being rammed down our throats whether we like it our not, and regardless of safety concerns. Call me crazy, but I still want to make my own life choices, and not have the government and corporations make them for me. Just for the record, in food, "you won't notice the difference" does not equate to safe to eat. Safe to eat is actually the most important part of "mission accomplished".

Monsanto will patent it, claim real meat infringes, then make us all eat it. No labelling of fake meat will be allowed, so we won't know what we are eating. At that time maybe I'll try the frankensalmon.

I'd go even further. Why does a supermarket need customer data in the first place? There needs to be an attitude change. Our personal data is ours, and no store deserves to have it given to them in order to give us the sale prices that they have always used as marketing tools. It never ends, and now I must give out SSN to get a fishing license. Tell me that's not an accident waiting to happen.

Yes, you've spoken well.

Yes, you've said it all, and once the whole "privilege" concept is accepted, the hoops to be jumped through become endless.

I find it interesting that the lower Marion school district investigation over student's laptop surveillance ended with the FBI pressing no charges, claiming that there was no criminal intent, thus no crime. Remember that surveillance at the student's home was done claiming the software was for recovering laptops that were stolen. I grew up in a time when '1984' was scary. Now, people accept more onerous control over every aspect of their lives without blinking an eye. If we intend to retain any resemblance of freedom, this trend must be reversed. (I couldn't believe people accepted supermarket loyalty cards. Think about it for a moment. You're allowing your every purchase to be logged and tracked, and the data bought and sold for a few cents off on sale items. The same items would have been on sale without the cards, but you would be purchasing them anonymously as God intended.) My fear is that all this control over devices that we purchase will spill over to general purpose computers. Oops, too late. The powers that be tell me I can't play a dvd I bought on my linux box. The scariest thing though, is that nearly all things now have a camera, a mic, and gps.

When the whole subject of net neutrality came up, it was obvious that neutrality of packet delivery needed to be preserved in order for the internet to continue to exist as a space where innovation runs rampant. Now it seems that in order to assure neutral packet delivery, we must accept regulation by the FCC. Historically, FCC regulation has often become overbearing. We could see the internet turn into glorified TV where the FCC starts to regulate content. So, either we get packet delivery by extortion from the ISPs, or we get a regulated internet with no idea where further regulation will take us. Like so much of life lately, it looks like another lose, lose for the citizenry.

I am less interested in evading Big Brother tech, than I am interested in the ceasing of these intrusions in our lives. We should modify our appearances to avoid being tracked in everything we do? Those who are old enough in the US surely remember being told over and over again that part of what made the US system superior to the soviet system was that US citizens were free to live their lives without constant government scrutiny. We did not have to "show our papers". Now, everything that was shown to us as abuses of the soviet system against its citizens exists here now on steroids and with technology no one would have dreamed possible back then. Let us not get in the mindset that we should try to avoid these technologies, but rather let us work to roll attitudes back to the point where we are free to live without constant government oversight. Can anyone deny "we are being watched" is the new norm, and the new norm is swiftly crossing over into tyranny? Still, I am heartened by the fact that many see facial recognition for what it is, and at least have the attitude that they should be free to thwart it. Of course, understand, at some point there will be laws prohibiting you from painting your face in order to defeat the software. It will be your duty as a citizen to allow yourself to be scrutinized by the government every second of every day. That will then be "the new norm".

How is this for an assumption: Even though we are out in public, we should be allowed to be left alone. I don't exist in order to be tracked, thus adding to your income stream. The assumption that we all must be tracked in order to catch a minority deadbeats is flawed. In the US, you cannot even go fishing without giving out your SSN for a fishing license. This was sold as a way to track down deadbeat dads. Now my SSN is in a fish commission database that can be accessed by little machines in all outlets that sell the licenses. How long do you think it will be before the database is hacked, and someone will be buying lunch in Russia with a credit card using my SSN while i"m fishing in the US? But, hey, that's the price we must pay for catching a few deadbeats.

Al Gore's 100 ft. houseboat:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-with-a-massive-new-houseboat/
my boat:
cheap 8 ft. kayak
Yet, he gets to lecture me about carbon usage. Gore is a lightening rod of bad PR for everything he touches. That alone should make the Apple stockholders wary for electing him to the board. Making energy so expensive that the poor cannot afford it, while allowing the wealthy to use as much as they want through "carbon offsets" is one of the most despicable scams ever floated. Mr. Gore, if the planet is in such danger, then lead by example. Put on Gandi's loincloth first before telling the rest of us that we are wearing too much clothing. If we must use less energy, so be it. Then ration it. Then, if I have enough to last all month, Mr. Gore will be in the dark in his freezing cold home for three and a half weeks. By the way, Mr. Gore, the science is not settled simply because you say that it is. The bottom line: 1. don't lecture me 2. Stop trying to take money out of my pocket and putting it in yours.

I feel the same way. Yes, they may not really compare to Hubble's, and others may have done better, still, the man used what is not a small amount of his own time, money, and effort to produce something worthwhile in the true tradition of the amateur, that is out of love of the work. To complain that the results are not good enough always reminds me of the crabs in a bucket syndrome where when one crab expends the effort to climb halfway out of the bucket, the other crabs drag him back down. Is it too much to ask to praise someone who has achieved something, rather than to say that he didn't do enough?